David
Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician,
patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to
the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting
President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the
American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington,
Ramsay wrote with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being
personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published
History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History
of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and
in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). Ramsay “was a major
intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and
abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of
the American Revolution (1789)…” Arthur H. Shaffer, “Between Two Worlds: David
Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery,” J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984).
“During the progress of the Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected materials for
its history, and his great impartiality, his fine memory, and his acquaintance
with many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified him for the task….” http://www.famousamericans.net/davidramsay/.
In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles
published an extensive study of Ramsay's “History of the American Revolution”
in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in
the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of
this opportunity. “The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his
critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,'' Professor Smith
concluded, “are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him
to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.”

The “United States” are a new nation, or political
society, formed at first by the declaration of independence, out of those “British
subjects” in “America,” who were thrown out of royal protection by act of
parliament, passed in “December,” 1775.

A citizen of the “United States,” means a member of
this new nation. The principle of
government being radically changed by the revolution, the political character
of the people was also changed from subjects to citizens.

The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the latin word, “sub”
and “jacio,” and means one who is “under” the power of another; but a citizen
is a “unit” of a mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty.

Subjects look up to a master, but citizens are so far
equal, that none have hereditary rights superior to others. Each citizen of a free state contains, within
himself, by nature and the constitution, as much of the common sovereignty as
another. In the eye of reason and
philosophy, the political condition of citizens is more exalted than that of noblemen. Dukes and earls are the creatures of kings,
and may be made by them at pleasure; but citizens possess in their own right
original sovereignty.

Id. at 3. (emphasis in the original).

Here Ramsay described how the new nation came into
being from the revolution with Great Britain and that its new members were citizens
and not subjects. He then explained the “immense”
difference between a citizen and a subject.
Indeed, citizens were masters of their own destiny, all equal to each
other, and under no one.

Then he went on to explain how one became a citizen,
stating:

The following appear to be the only modes of acquiring
this distinguishing privilege.

1st.
By being parties to the original compact, the declaration of
independence.

2d. By taking
an oath of fidelity to some one of the “United States,” agreeable to law.

3d. By tacit
consent and acquiescence.

4th.
By birth or inheritance.

5th.
By adoption.

Id. at 4
(emphasis in the original).

He then explained how one acquired citizenship through
each one of his categories. As to the 1st
category, these included all those persons who adhered to the American
Revolution by being a party to the Declaration of Independence through which “’a
nation was born in a day.’” The 2nd
and 3rd categories included those who took an oath of allegiance to
the American cause, or upon reaching the age of majority just accepted the new
states and continued to reside there under their protection.

Ramsay then went on to describe the 4th
category persons who the Framers in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 called the “natural
born Citizens.”Here is what he
said:

4th.
None can claim citizenship as a birth-right, but such as have been born
since the declaration of independence, for obvious reasons: no man can be born a citizen of a state or
government, which did not exist at the time of this birth. Citizenship is the inheritance of the
children of those who have taken a part in the last revolution; but this is
confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves
citizens. Those who died before the
revolution, could leave no political character to their children, but of
subjects, which they themselves possessed.
If they had lived, no one could be certain whether they would have
adhered to the king or congress. Their
children, therefore, may claim by inheritance the rights of “British subjects,”
but not of “American citizens.”

5th.
Persons born in any country may have acquired citizenship by adoption,
or naturalization, agreeably to law. The
citizenship of such must be dated from the time of their adoption.

Id. at 6 (emphasis in the original).

Then Ramsay drew these conclusions: "The citizenship of no man could be previous
to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none
but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of 'July,' 1776. . . . From the premises already established, it may be farther inferred,
that citizenship, from inheritance, belong to none but the children of those 'Americans,' who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that
adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring.” Id. at 6-7 (emphasis in the original).

While not using the phrase “natural born citizen,”
Ramsay described the original citizens that existed during the Founding and
what it meant to acquire citizenship by birthright after the Founding. The
Constitution itself shows that the Framers called the original citizens
“Citizens of the United States” and those that followed them “natural born
Citizens.” He said concerning the children born after the declaration of
independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who
have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the
children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that
“citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those
Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that
adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their
offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right,
belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July,
1776….” Id. at 6. We can see why the Framers in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 grandfathered "Citizens of the United States," which included themselves, to be eligible to be President. He also explained that persons born in any country
may have acquired citizenship by adoption or naturalization, telling us that in
order to be a natural born citizen one had to be born in the United
States. Ramsay did not use the clause
“natural born Citizen.” Rather, he referred to citizenship as a birthright
which he said was a natural right. But there is little doubt that how he
defined birthright citizenship meant the same as "natural born citizen,"
"native," and "indigenes," all terms that were then used
interchangeably.

Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder
defined a natural born citizen. Noah Webster, 1828, in explaining how an
American dictionary of the English language was necessary because American
words took on different meanings than the same word in England, placed David
Ramsay among great Founders such as “Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jay, Madison,
Marshall, Ramsay, Dwight, Smith, Trumbull...” Given his position
of influence and especially given that he was a highly respected historian,
Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential Founders and Framers
and would have known how they too defined a natural born citizen. Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and
being intimately involved in the events of the time would have known how the
Founders and Framers defined a natural born citizen and he told us that such a
person was one born in the country to citizen parents. In giving us this
definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but
rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, who also defined the
“natives, or natural-born citizen” the same as did Ramsay in his highly
acclaimed and influential treatise, The
Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and
Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English).
We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined
a natural born citizen the same way that Ramsay did, for being a meticulous
historian he would have gotten his definition from the general consensus that
existed at the time. Ramsay’s dissertation presents valuable evidence of how
the Founding generation defined the original citizens and the future generations
of citizens, who were either descendants of the original citizens or children
of naturalized citizens, born in the United States, who the Framers called natural
born citizens. It is valuable because it is evidence of the public meaning of
these terms at the time they were framed and ratified.

Ramsay’s article and explication are further evidence of the influence that
Vattel had on the Founders in how they defined the new national citizenship.
This article by Ramsay, provided to me by an anonymous source in 2010 while I
was handling the Kerchner v. Obama and Congress case, is one of the most
important pieces of evidence which provides direct evidence on how the Founders and Framers defined
a natural born citizen and that there is little doubt that they defined one as
a child born in the country to citizen parents. This time-honored definition of a natural born
citizen has been confirmed by subsequent United States Supreme Court and lower
court cases such as The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall,
C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides
his definition of “natives, or indigenes,” or who the Framers called natural
born citizens); Inglis v.
Trustees of Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1830) (decided on the citizenship principles
of the law of nations and Vattel and not the English common law); Shanks v.
Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (decided on the citizenship principles of the
law of nations and Vattel and not the English common law); Dred Scott v.
Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (relied upon the law of nations definition of
citizenship and not the English common law definition of a natural born subject)
(Daniel, J., concurring) (specifically citing and quoting Vattel and his
Section 212 for the definition of “natives, or natural-born citizens” and not
the English common law); Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873)
(in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, “subject to the
jurisdiction thereof,” said that the clause “was intended to exclude from its
operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign
States born within the United States”); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162,
167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879,
5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42
F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim
Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (quoted the same definition of natural born citizen as
did Minor v. Happersett); Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in
commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the
Fourteenth Amendment: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause,
which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every
human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not
owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your
Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US
Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)).

The two-citizen-parent
requirement would have followed from the common law that provided that
a woman upon marriage took the citizenship of her husband. In other words, the
Framers required both (1) birth on United States soil (or its equivalent) and
(2) birth to two United States citizen parents as necessary conditions of being
granted that special status which under our Constitution only the President and
Commander in Chief of the Military (and also the Vice President under the
Twelfth Amendment) must have at the time of his or her birth. Given the
necessary conditions that must be satisfied to be granted the status, all natural
born citizens" are "citizens of the United States" but not all
"citizens of the United States" are natural born citizens. It was only through both parents being
citizens that the child was born with unity
of citizenship and allegiance to the United States which the Framers
required the President and Commander in Chief of the Military to have.

De facto President Barrack Obama fails to meet this “natural born Citizen” eligibility test because when
he was born in 1961 (regardless of where that may be), he was not born to a
United States citizen mother and father. At his birth, his mother was a United
States citizen. But under the British Nationality Act 1948, his father, who was
born in the British colony of Kenya, was born a Citizen of the United Kingdom
and Colonies (CUKC) which
by descent made Obama himself a CUKC. Prior to Obama’s birth, Obama’s
father neither intended to nor did he become a United States citizen. Being
temporarily in the United States only for purpose of study and with the intent
to return to Kenya, his father did not intend to nor did he even become a legal
resident or immigrant to the United States.

Obama
may be a plain born “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth
Amendment or a Congressional Act (if
he was born in Hawaii). But as we can see from David Ramsay’s clear
presentation, citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who
have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. Hence,
Obama is not an Article II natural born citizen, for upon Obama's birth his
father was a British subject and Obama himself by descent was also the same.
Hence, Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Obama lacks the birth status
of natural sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States which
only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military and Vice President
must have at the time of birth. Being born subject to a foreign power, he lacks
Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance to the United States from the time of birth
which assures that required degree of natural sole and absolute birth
allegiance and loyalty to the United States, a
trait that is constitutionally indispensable in a President and Commander in
Chief of the Military. Like a naturalized citizen, who despite taking an oath
later in life to having sole allegiance to the United States, is not a natural
born citizen because of being born subject to a foreign power, Obama too is not
a natural born citizen. He has therefore
held the civil and military powers of the Office of President and Commander in
Chief contrary to the Constitution and therefore without any constitutional legitimacy.

For a demonstration as to why Senator Ted Cruz,
Senator Marco Rubio, and Governor Bobby Jindal are also not natural born citizens
and therefore not constitutionally eligible to be elected President, see Mario Apuzzo, “Senator
Cruz, Senator Rubio, and Governor Jindal Should Not Be Allowed to Participate
in the Presidential Debates Because They, Like De Facto President Obama, Are
All Not Natural Born Citizens and Therefore Not Eligible to Be President,
accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/05/senator-cruz-senator-rubio-and-governor.html
.

So,
David Ramsay told us that a natural born citizen was born on July 4, 1776. Today is July 4, 2015, or 239 years since
that birth. Happy Birth Day natural born
citizen of the United States of America.

187
comments:

I have no truck against Ramsey's essay, written and published PRIOR to the Ratification of the COTUS.

But once the COTUS was ratified it then REQUIRES calculating ALL U.S. Citizenship from that date, retroactively or predictable, for the citizenship that existed prior had yet to be PERFECTED by the New UNION established by the COTUS.

Also. PRIOR to the Ratification of the COTUS there was NO Office of the POTUS and NO Article II Section I Clause V LAW that provided for the exclusive eligibility of a U.S. natural born Citizen to that Office.

In fact, prior to A2S1C5, the existence of "natural born children cum citizens" was the norm of of births throughout civil societies, with one being of no singular import over another.

It was ONLY the language of A2S1C5 that elevated the import of such births to the Constitutional level of regard.

Your summary from David Ramsay's perspective as a founder and a personal friend of other founders, framers and ratifiers is excellent as usual. Very informative is this:

>> Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a natural born citizen. Noah Webster, 1828, in explaining how an American dictionary of the English language was necessary because American words took on different meanings than the same word in England, placed David Ramsay among great Founders such as “Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jay, Madison, Marshall, Ramsay, Dwight, Smith, Trumbull...”

Given his position of influence and especially given that he was a highly respected historian, Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential Founders and Framers and would have known how they too defined a natural born citizen.

Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in the events of the time would have known how the Founders and Framers defined a natural born citizen and he told us that such a person was one born in the country to citizen parents.

In giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, who also defined the “natives, or natural-born citizen” the same as did Ramsay in his highly acclaimed and influential treatise, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English).

We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined a natural born citizen the same way that Ramsay did, for being a meticulous historian he would have gotten his definition from the general consensus that existed at the time.

Ramsay’s dissertation presents valuable evidence of how the Founding generation defined the original citizens and the future generations of citizens, who were either descendants of the original citizens or children of naturalized citizens, born in the United States, who the Framers called natural born citizens.

It is valuable because it is evidence of the public meaning of these terms at the time they were framed and ratified."

Particularly helpful is the first two sentences:

"Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a natural born citizen.

"Noah Webster, 1828, in explaining how an American dictionary of the English language was necessary because American words took on different meanings than the same word in England, placed David Ramsay among great Founders such as

Mario, the only person in the list that I would amplify as much, much MUCH more important than David Ramsay regarding Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and POTUS eligibility is original birther John Jay, Federation founder and New York state ratifier of his own original genesis original intent meaning for the word "born" that he authored and underlined in "natural born Citizen" in his note to his very good friend George Washington. It was a suggestion that was accepted by the framers who adopted and signed the Constitution on September 17, 1787.

Why the emphasis on John Jay?

Well, if John Jay had not suggested "natural born Citizen" to George Washington, and through Washington to the framers of Article II and section 1 clause 5, David Ramsay would not have had anything to say about "natural born Citizen" as a prerequisite to citizenship and POTUS eligibility.

The one thing that I would add to your summary about the significance of David Ramsay's articulation of who a citizen is, and by implication who is a "natural born Citizen" for POTUS eligibility is that John Jay is the fulcrum between, for instance, Emer de Vattel and David Ramsay, and, of course, the court cases you adduced.

You wrote that Ramsay did not mention "natural born Citizen""

"While not using the phrase “natural born citizen,” Ramsay described the original citizens that existed during the Founding and what it meant to acquire citizenship by birthright after the Founding.

That is my main reason for the emphasis on John Jay, the historical fulcurm and the only known author of the phrase "natural born Citizen" with the underlined emphasis on the the word "born" with the 1787 common law understanding that, by marriage, the U.S. citizenship of the husband determined the U.S. citizenship of the wife, AND the singular U.S. citizenship of BOTH married heterosexual parents determined the singular U.S. citizenship of the child when born on U.S. soil. In other words, a “natural born Citizen” is has ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by being born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married heterosexual parents.

Maybe the Supreme Court should revisit the June 26, 2015 Supreme Court decision that declared that “We the People” of the entire United States had to accept that homosexual marriage was equal to homosexual marriage, at least concerning what a "natural born Citizen" is as a requirement for POTUS eligibility.

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

The last paragraphs from yesterday, July 4, 2015 at 11:19 PM, should read:

“... the entire United States had to accept that homosexual marriage was equal to heterosexual marriage....”

Until the SCOTUS revisits their new paradigm for viewing egg and sperm science reality, their “new thought” and new society decision, maybe the COTUS should clarify that "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 is NOT affected by the SCOTUS and its feel good "liberty and equality" redefinition of marriage, and so the POTUS must continue to be ONLY a singular U.S. citizen ONLY by being born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen heterosexual married parents.

Will the COTUS ever support the obvious, that, just as two persons are required to produce a child, so also two U.S. citizen parents are required to produce a singular U.S. citizen child?

Will the COTUS ever support the obvious, that two parents of different citizenships, for example, U.S. citizenship and Canadian citizenship, can ONLY produce a child with dual U.S./foreign citizenship, for example, my state of Texas favorite Senator Ted Cruz, and two parents of different citizenship can NOT produce a singular U.S. citizenship child?

Will the COTUS ever support the obvious, that two persons with the same foreign citizenship, for example, Cuba or India, can ONLY produce a child with dual U.S./foreign citizenship, for example Cuban parents and U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio and Indian parents and U.S. Gov. Bobby Jindal, and can NOT produce a singular U.S. citizenship child?

Side bar: The way the Fourteenth Amendment is applied since the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision is a separate issue. A reversal by the Court itself or an amendment to the constitution can correct the misguided decision of the 1898 Court that declared that a child born on U.S. soil to alien parents is a U.S. citizen instead of an alien citizen, a Fourteenth Amendment decision which is now being promoted as making eligible to the office of President children born on U.S. soil to alien parents, for example Sen. Rubio and Gov. Jindal.

That's nuts and constitutional suicide by the 1898 SCOTUS that continues today. Do Sen. Cruz, Sen. Rubio and Gov. Jindal, and for that matter, do BIG Talkers, Democratic Obots and Republican “natural born Citizen” new meaning neo-birthers like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Greta Van Sustern, etc. and etc. and et al., want to commit constitutional suicide to allow a fundamentalist Islamic jihadi to break and enter U.S. soil, if not already accomplished, to plop and drop an anchor baby with the expectation that at age 35 the jihadi child will be eligible to be POTUS? THAT is national suicide. THAT is nuts!!! The 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision must be overturned or corrected by amendedment.

So, will the COTUS ever support the obvious?

Probably not, because it is not in the political self interest of Representatives and Senators to support the obvious original intent of John Jay and David Ramsay about citizenship, specifically John Jay's reason for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" as it applies to citizenship and POTUS eligibility.

Will "We the People" ever support the obvious?

Well, one way to find out is to promote the constitutional Article V convention of states' legislatures to propose an amendment, the ONLY recourse that "We the People" have to rein in and correct a recalcitrant yet power hungry COTUS, an overreaching and confused "legislative" power hungry SCOTUS and a plain ol' power hungry POTUS.

John Jay and David Ramsay would probably both agree, since Article V is part of the original Constitution.

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

ajtelles,I'm with you until you promote an Article V convention. Considering who would be in charge of such a convention, it can only be seen as a quicker form of political suicide than keeping Obama in office and then allowing his equally unqualified wannabees to take over.

What if, instead, we push our Sheriff's, who are Constitutional Officers, to form grand juries (Attorneys General and DA's would do, too.) to annually review the body of work of each of our elected, appointed, and commissioned officers against the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers? (This is just like every bank president must leave his bank for two weeks each year for a complete audit. So, I'm not anything new that the rest of us don't have to do.)

Each body of work would be submitted with the name and party of the public servant redacted. Each jury would be selected randomly just like any other jury. The Public Servants under review would be subject to criminal charges for any unconstitutional actions. Of course, they would retain the right of appeal, but it would be their responsibility to make sure that the entirety of their work was easily justified by the previously mentioned documents.

I believe that this is constitutionally justified under the 1st amendment, redress of grievances. We the People have the right to know what our servants are doing and the right to enforce the oath of office that every one of them has freely taken. Our servants who do not respect the Constitution or honor their Oath of Office need to be held legally accountable.

Simply allowing ignorant people to "vote" (along party lines) has proven insufficient for the protection of the God given rights of every individual.

We the People who wish to maintain our Constitutional Republic have been compromised. I think that this measure would go a long way towards restoring our Republic and provide a welcome means of avoiding the last option: the 2nd Amendment.

An Article V Convention should only be considered when We the People grow tired of the blessings of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and desirous of complete State Control over our lives and the lives of our posterity. I haven't read of any proposed changes that restrict our government any more than our current Constitution. Most actually increase the power of the Federal Government: some give it absolute power over the people reverting the status of the People to subjects instead of "citizens".

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with our present Constitution. Our only problem is that way too many of those sworn to uphold it either have no idea of what it it really says or have no honor.

In regard to those who are President of the United States claiming Constitutional Authority, the Court has said that "The burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States, or the prohibition of power to the States, is upon those making the claim." Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 (1948) @653, yet for some reason, it is given a pass and unenforced even by public pressure to have those claiming such authority adhere to or prove such authority. Why is that?

The Court has also specified the legality and recognition of a legitimate birth certificate or hospital records with WITNESSES to the birth as optional testimony in place of a mother who is a living and preferential witness to the birth of a child in Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54,62; yet we do not make the demands that those we would entrust with the Presidency of the United States to be able to produce such documentation that can pass a legal scrutiny as a genuine document in a United States Court of Law?

Furthermore, even the majority Communist-Socialist pre-biased majority of the Roberts Court has now just acknowledged by majority, that by necessity of legal interpretation, we may NOT exclude CITIZEN FATHERS from being a legal necessity from the intent of those legal framers in the time period in which Natural Born Citizen clause was inserted into the Constitution of the United States. Make the comparison between what Blackstone writes and what Americans inserted in the Constitution, the Natural Born Citizen clause just 22 years later, just 22 years later from when it was still wholly viable that: "Under the centuries-old doctrine of coverture, a married man and woman were treated by the State as a single, male-dominated legal entity. See 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England." 430 (1765) Obergefell et al v. Hodges __ US __ (2014) @ 6 Citizenship was carried by the man of the family, the father...and that is the intent whereby a natural born citizenship to any nation must be passed down through in the eyes and intent of those who gave us the Constitution of the United States. The Founders were ever requiring in U.S. Constitutional Law passed down to us that a Father was and is always needed to pass down any claim to Natural Born Citizenship as stated also by John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 6: ‘Of Paternal Power’ §. 59...unless and until the Constitution itself is properly amended to say otherwise.

"...the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.”The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414

Without a FATHER being a United States Citizen at the time of the child's birth, and without the child being born on U.S. soil under sole allegiance to the United States alone, there is nothing NATURAL about his citizenship being a "Natural BORN" one rather than an operation of law. That is the same point John Jay makes to George Washington, that Justice Joseph Story asserts, that Senators Howard and Trumbull made in asserting what a lesser definition of "subject to the jurisdiction" meant in the 14th Amendment section 1 that they were debating on.

You said that an Article V convention initiated by the legislatures of the states would be quick political suicide "Considering who would be in charge of such a convention...."

Article V tell us “who would be in charge” of “a convention.” As the language of Article V shows, there is no “who” in charge and there is no “a” convention that Is not authorized by Article V when the “Congress...shall call a Convention....”

_Every state is in charge of their “several States” convention delegates sent to the convention to “propose” the amendment(s).

_The two thirds of the state legislatures apply to the Federation legislature which MUST “call a Convention for proposing Amendments.”

_The Federal legislature can NOT prohibit the state legislatures from using Article V authority to propose one or more amendments.

_If two thirds of the states' legislatures can not agree on the language of a proposed amendment, then no amendment will be ratified by “the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States.”

_That means that the state legislatures propose the amendment(s) and the state legislatures ratify the amendment(s).

_The three branches of the tripartite Federation, the Federal legislature, the Federal executive and the Federal judiciary can NOT nullify the “application” by the two thirds of the State Legislatures for the Federal legislature, the bicameral Congress, to “call” a convention of the “several States” of the Union. The tripartite Federation can NOT nullify the proposed amendment of the states' legislatures or the ratified amendment when three fourths of the States ratify an amendment.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,

or,

on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,

which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of the Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,

or

by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article;

and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Robert and other friends of Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and John Jay's original genesis meaning for “born” and Jay's original intent for “natural born Citizen,” is "political suicide" what the framers of Article V thought would be the result when they included the legislatures of the “several States” option with the same constitutional authority to propose amendments as they gave to the U.S. Congress?

Well, obviously, no, otherwise they would not have included the legislature grassroots option. Right?

The language of Article V is the framers language for their posterity, that's us today, to exercise our "We the People...more perfect Union" authority by our elected Representatives and Senators AND our state legislatures.

In fact, for readers of Tom Wood's Liberty Classroom nullification blog or Publius Hulda's blog who know that she advocates Thomas Jefferson's view about “nullification” and she emphasizes “nullification” by the individual states instead of Article V “nullification” by the “several States,” the Article V language is constitutional "nullification" language for We the People to rein in our tripartite Federation: our Federation legislature, our Federation executive and our Federation judiciary. The Federal legislature congregates and convenes, aka it has a convention every day they convene, and some days members of the Federal legislature propose amendments to the Constitution. So, just as the Federal legislature proposing amendments is not "political suicide" and should not be prohibited, so also the state legislatures proposing amendments is not political suicide and should not be prohibited, but should be endorsed and advocated.

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

Dittos especially to your third paragraph with the "coverture" quote from the Obergefell et al v. Hodges homosexual marriage decision by the Supreme Court on June 26, 2015.

Jchief ustice Roberts: “As the majority notes, some aspects of marriage have changed over time. Arranged marriages have largely given way to pairings based on romantic love. States have replaced coverture, the doctrine by which a married man and woman became a single legal entity, with laws that respect each participant’s separate status. (my emphasis added)

I noticed the "coverture" language by Justice Kennedy writing for the majority and by Justice Roberts writing for the minority when I read the decision and immediately thought that the "coverture" language might be grounds for revisiting and overturning the decision, and an excellent opportunity to associate the "coverature" language with John Jay's "born" emphasis in "natural born Citizen" in Article II.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

>> "Furthermore...the Roberts Court has now just acknowledged by majority, that...we may NOT exclude CITIZEN FATHERS from being a legal necessity....

>> "Make the comparison between what Blackstone writes and what Americans inserted in the Constitution, the Natural Born Citizen clause just 22 years later, just 22 years later from when it was still wholly viable that:

>> ' "Under the centuries-old doctrine of coverture, a married man and woman were treated by the State as a single, male-dominated legal entity. See 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England."

>> "430 (1765) Obergefell et al v. Hodges __ US __ (2014) @ 6"

And your comment also deserves dittos: "Citizenship was carried by the man of the family, the father...and that is the intent whereby a natural born citizenship to any nation"

I like the way CDR Kerchner and Mario Apuzzo put the citizenship and allegiance point that you are making, and I like to phrase it this way: ONLY by marriage, the U.S. citizenship of the husband determined the U.S. citizenship of the wife, AND the singular U.S. citizenship of BOTH U.S. citizen heterosexual married parents determined the U.S. singular citizenship of their child, the ONLY "citizen" who is "...eligible to the Office of President."

In other words, ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by being born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen heterosexual married parents who are married ONLY to each other ONLY before the child is born.

If the Supreme Court will not revisit and overturn their June 26, 2015 Obergefell et al v. Hodges decision, maybe an Article V convention of the states legislatures could consider proposing an amendment to correct the decision to align homosexual marriage with Article II.

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

Again, that women's citizenship was separated from that of her husband by the Cable Act of 1922 and others that followed could not nor did it change the meaning of a natural born citizen, which could be changed only by constitutional amendment. The meaning still remained a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. Minor v. Happersett (1875); accord U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). What changed by these laws was that women now had to make sure that they were U.S. citizens in their own right and not only through marriage to a U.S. citizen husband before giving birth to their child if that child was to be a natural born citizen.

"What changed by these laws was that women now had to make sure that they were U.S. citizens in their own right and not only through marriage to a U.S. citizen husband before giving birth to their child if that child was to be a natural born citizen."

Your sentence above could be followed by what I wrote in my comment to Brianroy on July 6, 2015 at 3:08 PM because the Cable Act did not change the implicit meaning of "born" in "natural born Citizen": two persons are required to produce a natural law child and two U.S. citizen heterosexual married parents are required to produce a positive law singular U.S. citizenship child.

Heterosexual married parents?

Well, in September 17, 1787 America, definitely ONLY heterosexual married parents, at least for eligibility to the presidency. At least, until June 26, 2015, when the Supreme Court overreached its authority to change the meaning of marriage from meaning ONLY male and female marriage, aka other sex marriage to produce more citizens of the Union, to include same sex marriage that can not produce citizens for the Union, an arbitrary change by 5 persons in black robes that does not change the natural law of "born" and the positive law of "natural born Citizen" for eligibility to the presidency in Article II.

"...ONLY by marriage, the U.S. citizenship of the husband determined the U.S. citizenship of the wife, AND the singular U.S. citizenship of BOTH U.S. citizen heterosexual married parents determined the U.S. singular citizenship of their child, the ONLY "citizen" who is "...eligible to the Office of President."

"In other words, ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by being born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen heterosexual married parents who are married ONLY to each other ONLY before the child is born."

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

aj,I appreciate your position and the research behind it. I just want to know who, exactly, among the State Legislatures has demanded adherence to our Constitution? Who has sued for the elimination of all agencies, acts, etc. formed outside the authority of the Constitution? Who has demanded that Mr. Obama be removed from office because he is clearly not qualified constitutionally? Who has demanded that the Supreme Court Justices who have clearly overstepped their Constitutional authority be removed from office? Was it Governors? Lt. Governors? Attorneys General? Senators? Representatives? Justices? Sheriffs? Mayors? District Attorneys? WHO is standing up for our Constitution among those who would most likely be at the Convention? I don't see anyone.

In reality, these are the folks in whom you must trust an Article V Convention. And, if you give them one, I think you will be sorely disappointed in the results. Even just the past two elections have shown these folks to be lying traitors and cowards.

But, just for discussion, should these folks by some miracle become trustworthy, what amendments do you think we need that will actually improve upon the Constitution we now have, by what mechanism would their passage be guaranteed' and by what means would they be enforced?

That is why I think we need to form grand juries which will hold our public servants accountable under threat of prosecution, imprisonment and, for actions of treason, even the death penalty. They need to know that everything they do will be impartially judged by We the People against our Constitution with the help of the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers.

Once our servants demonstrate that they will honor their oaths of office - which were included in the constitution for an obvious purpose - or once the offending persons are removed from office, I might be more amenable to your convention (even though I firmly believe that it would then be moot) and would hope that those chosen to attend it would be as well prepared and as concerned about our nation as yourself.

As we now have zero representation under a government with no true accountability, we may as well have our servants recite "Mary had a little lamb...", do away with the oath altogether, and let them continue to do whatever they can get away with.

A natural born citizen, like any baby, needs to be born or else it cannot exist. It is a necessary condition of a baby to be born that a man's sperm be transmitted to a woman's egg by way of natural (copulation) or artificial insemination. This is a law of nature that no positive law can change.

A pregnancy from artificial insemination is in effect no different from a pregnancy produced by sexual intercourse. The woman is the biological mother of the child and the man whose sperm is used is the biological father. Legal complications arise when the sperm donated is by an unknown male and laws have to sort those matters out. Religion and positive laws also impact on access to artificial insemination.

Matters are made even more legally complex with surrogacy (a woman carrying a baby before its birth for other intended parents), which can be either traditional or gestational. How it is all done determines to whom the child is genetically related. Complex issues may arise as to who is the genetic mother versus who is the legal mother.

One of the most complex issues will be what is a "natural" birth? Can two males or even one, by use of surrogacy, be considered as having given natural birth to a child? If the law declares it so, is that birth really a natural birth or is it no different than how a law naturalizes a child or adult to be a citizen, either at birth or after birth?

For natural born citizen purposes, I believe the key in the artificial birth cases is who are considered to be the biological parents of the child at the time of birth, a status which is still determined by natural law. Our current immigration laws already deal with the issue of surrogacy. Under our current laws, it is the blood relationship between the child and the biological parents that controls the question of U.S. citizenship transmission. For example, see:

a. A child born abroad to a foreign surrogate mother who is the natural/blood mother (i.e., who was the egg-donor) and whose claimed father was a U.S. citizen is treated for citizenship purposes as a child born out of wedlock. The procedures for proving citizenship under section 309(a) INA (8 U.S.C. 1409(a)), as amended apply (see 7 FAM 1133.4-3 b). The blood relationship between the child and the putative U.S. citizen father must be proven. Additional evidence beyond the child's birth certificate and statement of the parents is required. Certification by appropriate medical authorities of all facts and circumstances surrounding the entire insemination procedure is required. Examples of appropriate supporting documentation include hospital records from the facility where the sperm donation was made, affidavit from the doctor who performed the operation, and possibly blood tests.

b. A child born abroad to a foreign surrogate mother who was not the egg-donor and whose claimed mother (egg-donor) and/or claimed father was a U.S. citizen is treated for citizenship purposes either as a child born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother (if the sperm donor was not a U.S. citizen) or as the child of two U.S. citizens. The applicable sections of law generally are sections 309(c) and 301 INA.

c. The status of the surrogate mother is immaterial to the issue of citizenship transmission. The child is considered the offspring of the biological parents and the appropriate INA section is applied. Evidence to establish the blood relationship between the child and the biological parents would be similar to that mentioned in 7 FAM 1131.4-2 a.

Given that a natural born citizen must be born in the country also assures that any surrogacy must occur in the United States.

The Framers probably did not foresee such human happenings. Still, their natural born citizen can survive all of these modern-day events. In the end, under our Constitution, a natural born citizen is still a child born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth.

Art, this is just a short comment on a very complex matter. I have no way thought through all the different nuances and ramifications. But at least, I have raised some interesting questions to be further explored.

Your sperm and egg science reality is very easy to follow and makes sense to me. In fact, it is similar to what I wrote on my Original Birther Document blog that I started March 2, 2012, the day after Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio's March 1, 2012 news conference about BHObama's computer generated birth certificate. It is in the post titled 24 Soil & Birth Original Intent Possibilities.

>> http://originalbirtherdocument5.blogspot.com/

Here is a part of it:

The “natural born Citizen” and “…or a Citizen of” Conclusion:

[...snip...]

“Good, because this “original genesis original intent” conversation is for members of “WE the Posterity” of “WE the People” with common sense who want to become informed about and understand the POTUS “natural born Citizen” eligibility issue and then use their own original intent common sense to analyze the 24 soil & birth possible circumstances which are next that might apply to a future favorite POTUS aspirant with unique soil & birth circumstances.”

Islam – Shariah Compliant Muslim Men With Multiple WivesHere are some 1787 Article II Section 1 Clause 5 original intent possible circumstances concerning Islam and shariah that allows and encourages shariah compliant Muslim women to marry shariah compliant Muslim men who may want to have more than one wife, as many as four wives.

Is this the original intent of the 1787 original birthers, the authors of “natural born Citizen” in Article II?[ ] Yes [ ] Maybe [x] No

Muslim and Born on U.S. Soil – questions 17 - 20Muslim and Born on Foreign Soil – questions 21 - 24

It is obvious that since “in vitro” fertilization and “in vivo” 9 month gestation were NOT included in the vocabulary of the original birthers, the original authors, in 1787 America when they wrote “natural born Citizen” into Article II, in vitro/in vivo definitely were NOT their original intent as a soil & birth possibility.

What About…What about “in vitro” fertilization by an anonymous male sperm donor source AND a known mother egg source and “in vivo” 9 month gestation with a surrogate mother, followed with adoption?

THAT means that AFTER “in vitro” fertilization and “in vivo” gestation for 9 months, since the citizenship status is of the sperm donor is NOT known, adoption by heterosexual persons, married OR not married, AND adoption by homosexual persons, ALSO was NOT in the 1787 original intent vocabulary of the original birthers, so it was NOT the original intent of the original birthers by implication in “natural born Citizen” because citizenship lineage is broken with the anonymous male sperm donor source.

THAT means that in the future of America, as medical science advances, and the 21st century “WE the Posterity” of the 18th century “WE the People,” with 21st century common sense, continue to “…form a more perfect [stronger & perpetual] Union,” ONLY “in vitro” fertilization by the natural father AND the natural mother, followed with “in vivo” gestation by the natural mother, will fulfill the spirit and letter of the “original genesis original intent” of “natural born Citizen.”

Right?

BOTH “in vitro” fertilization AND “in vivo” gestation by the original two married parents will fulfill the 1787 Article II Section 1 Clause 5 requirement of being “born” by conception AND gestation.

Right?

However, to be a “natural born Citizen” even in the 21st century, the child will be born ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. Citizen married heterosexual parents who were married AND U.S. Citizens at the latest one day BEFORE the “in vitro” & “in vivo” “natural born” child was born. The date of conception is not the issue, only the day of birth.

Right?

What About…What about “in vitro” fertilization by BOTH natural father and natural mother and “in vivo” 9 month gestation with a surrogate mother?

Since both “original intent common sense” and “medical science common sense” prevail here, and since BOTH the “in vitro” natural father AND natural mother are known, and their united citizenship lineage is not broken, i.e., BOTH parents are U.C. citizens before the child is born, “in vivo” gestation with help for 9 months from a surrogate mother falls on the common sense side of the spirit and letter of original intent since the “natural” union was “in vitro” by BOTH “natural” parents.

Right?

It is obvious that in 1787 America there definitely was NO OTHER original intent for an Article II “natural born Citizen” but ONLY being born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. Citizen heterosexual married persons who were BOTH U.S. Citizens AND married ONLY to each other BEFORE their child is born.

Right?

Well, when you put it like that—right.

Implicit ‘original intent’ #4: Rape—Conception—Birth

What About…What about birth of a child after conception by rape?

Since “original genesis original intent” common sense prevails here, rape obviously breaks the citizenship lineage because BOTH the U.S. Citizen “natural” father, who is definitely NOT a parent, and the U.S. Citizen “natural” mother, who may raise the child or may put the child up for adoption, were definitely NOT two U.S. Citizen persons married to each other BEFORE the child was born.

Right?

This means that the child conceived from rape is NOT an Article II Section 1 Clause 5 “natural born Citizen,” even IF the child was “natural” born on U.S. soil.

If it was the “original genesis original intent” of the 1787 original birthers that a POTUS aspirant IS eligible because of having ONLY one U.S. Citizen parent BEFORE birth of the child, then it MUST have been the original intent of the 1787 original birthers that a child born of rape is ALSO eligible because at least one person, the “natural” mother or the “natural” rapist father in this example, simply for continuity of thought, is known to be a U.S. Citizen.

Right?

Is this the original intent of the 1787 original birthers, the authors of “natural born Citizen” in Article II?[ ] Yes [x] No

Implicit in the 1787 original intent word “Union,” in which a child becomes a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen,” is, in the “…more perfect [stronger & perpetual] Union” anticipated in 1787 America, ONLY a union of two U.S. Citizen married heterosexual persons who were married to each other BEFORE the child is born on U.S. soil, NOT a union of one U.S. Citizen man with up to four wives, which is an accepted practice in Islam, in a shariah compliant Muslim home, even if the wife who bore the child is ALSO a U.S. Citizen BEFORE the child is born.

Right?

[x] Yes—ONLY born on U.S. soil with ONLY two U.S. Citizen married parents. [x] No—multiple wives, at birth OR later.

If this [x] Yes exclusivity is combined with the neo-birther multiple wives scenario and accepted as constitutional in 21st century America, it will be the original intent of the letter of the law, the trifecta exclusivity of soil, birth and citizenship that will be present, but the spirit of the law will be ignored and betrayed, and original birther John Jay’s “original genesis original intent” implicit presupposition of ONLY two U.S. Citizen married parents will be diminished.

Is [No the original intent of the 1787 original birthers, the authors of “natural born Citizen” in Article II?[ ] Yes [x] No

Is [x] Yes the original intent of the 1787 original birthers, the authors of “natural born Citizen?” [x] Yes [ ] No

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Of course Mario, I write for my friends who may ask with "what does that mean" innocence who simply want a simple answer, so with your erudite way of explaining the legal consequences of sperm and egg science reality, my brief look, with the 24 Questions plus the 5 "what about" questions about Implicit “original intent”, at the common sense implications of 21st century science and John Jay's 18th century original genesis original intent meaning for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" will be filled in, I'm sure, by your deeper analysis, as you indicated you will do in your two part post today, July 6, 2015 at 7:59 PM.

Hopefully the constitutional scholars and the BIG Talkers and the BIG Bloggers will get a clue soon, like, immediately.

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

I have followed your work for years and believe it is excellent and impeccable. Today, I showed the site to another patriot, and he countered with an argument I have never heard: since the courts have never found a non-nbc citizen ineligible for the position of POTUS, such a one can legitimately run for office (he has Cruz in mind) until the courts say otherwise. His argument seems to be founded upon the principle that there is primordial freedom to act unless the law declares otherwise through an organ of government. I do not think his argument is strong, because he presupposes the US constitution has no certain indisputable prima facie meaning, and that obligator meaning is only given by the courts, but I wanted to hear what an expert in the law might say to counter it. Thanks!

~~~~~

Hello _____ (name redacted),

The judiciary is not the only institution which can decide who is or is not a natural born citizen and therefore who can be elected President. That task also rests with the sovereign people. But for that to happen in a meaningful and constitutional manner, the people have to be correctly educated on the subject. Our constitutional republic works only as good as the degree to which the people are educated enough to understand what is and what is not in their best interest and constitutional. If the people do not understand and vote accordingly on the things that are done or not done in their best interest, or if they simply do not care, then so be it. The same applies to the people's understanding of the natural born citizen clause. On the other hand, if the people do take the time to educate themselves as to the meaning of a natural born citizen, then they will decide whether a candidate for President is or is not a natural born citizen and vote accordingly.

On July 6, 2015 at 7:38 PM, in your first paragraph you asked "who has sued," "who has demanded," "who is standing up." In your second paragraph you say "In reality, these are the folks in whom you must trust an Article V Convention."

Robert, the "...folks in whom you must trust" is you and your friends of your state.

The delegates are selected by the legislatures of the "several States" to attend the convention to represent the view of their own state. That means that you, Robert, could be a delegate for your own state if you are selected by your fellow citizens if your are qualified according to the standard of your state. Or you could be involved in the delegate selection process to select a person that you know, either a personal friend or a friend of a friend whom you trust. If you don't trust your friends or the people of your own state, well, trust your instincts to promote your own self interest and persuade your friends as to who would make a delegate that you could support because their self interest agrees with your own self interest.

Remember, the delegates are not promoting their personal agenda, their own person amendment language. The delegates are sent to promote the amendment language that the legislature of your state has already asked its state citizens about and then adopted before the delegates are sent to the convention of states.

Robert, you also wrote:

"But, just for discussion, should these folks by some miracle become trustworthy, what amendments do you think we need that will actually improve upon the Constitution we now have, by what mechanism would their passage be guaranteed' and by what means would they be enforced?"

Concerning "what amendments...will actually improve upon the Constitution" and "what mechanism...guaranteed" and "be enforced" that you asked about, and to balance out the nullification efforts of good people like Robert Wood and his LibertyClassroom.com individual states nullification blog, see his objections page ( LibertyClassroom.com/objections/ ), and Publius Hulda and her Understanding the Constitution blog ( PubliusHuldah.wordpress.com/ ) where she berates Article V advocates and promotes individual state nullification efforts instead of "several States" Article V "nullification" efforts, here is the url to the Convention of States blog ( ConventionOfStates.com/ ) where Article V is respected, defended and promoted with this Citizen Toolkit ( ConventionOfStates.com/citizens_toolkit ).

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

For the issue of "Natural Born Citizen" there is always the attempted excuse to EXCLUDE the father from being a required United States Citizen at the time of the child's birth. The issue of "...coverture, a married man and woman were treated by the State as a single, male-dominated legal entity. See 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765)" as stated by the Court as 430 Obergefell et al v. Hodges __ US __ (2014) @ 6" requires that we may never Constitutionally exclude the citizen father for the office of POTUS asit is an absolute necessity as being present in the child's birth, unless the mother is single or widowed and he (the father) is presumed a U.S. Citizen, who then a U.S. Citizen herself has a U.S. Soil birth. The Cable Act CANNOT deviate or deter the Constitution,(Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) @ 272 "It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution.") as the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land (see its Art. 6), and the Cable Act or any other inferior law to the Supreme Law does not alter or abolish any part of it. The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) (1814) 253 @ page 289"The ...children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." That is Constitutional Originalism to the NBC clause.

Breckinridge Long in his 1916 Assessment of Charles Evan Hugheshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/68922032/Natural-Born-Citizen-Within-Meaning-of-Constitution-by-Breckenridge-Long-Democrat-1916own Presidential aspirations would agree:

"The Constitution of the United States puts a particular qualification upon those who shall become President and Vice-President. For all other offices it requires that they be “citizens of the United States,” but for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency it requires that they be “Natural Born citizens.”

The word “natural” means “of the nature of”; “naturally a part of”; “by the laws of nature an integral part of” a system.

Following that line of thought a “natural born” citizen would be one who was naturally, at his birth, a member of the political society; naturally, a part of the political system into which he was born; by the laws of nature a citizen of the society into which he was born.

It would mean, further, that no other government had any claim upon him; that his sole allegiance was to the government into which he had been born and that that government was solely, at the time, responsible for his protection. “

Native born” does not mean quite the same thing."

Having a citizen mother only does NOT qualify one to run for President, and the absence of a U.S. Citizen Father at the time of birth is all one common theme every single illegal Presidential Candidate running, as well as the current usurper, has. THAT is the point that needs to be EXTREMELY EMPHASIZED.

I totally agree. At common law, a natural born citizen always required a father and mother who were both citizens at the time of the child's birth. It was only with two citizen parents and birth to them in the country of which they were citizens that the child was born not subject to any foreign power.

Under "coverture," married men and women, followed the husband's citizenship, and therefore were always either citizens or aliens. This unity of spousal citizenship is demonstrated in both Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). But the point is not whether the man led the woman. Rather, the point is that parents had to be both citizens. So, coverture was only a means or mechanism by which unity of citizenship and allegiance in spouses and children's parents was achieved.

Neither modern equal protection nor the Cable Act changed the definition of a natural born citizen. Equal protection only says that a man and woman, similarly situated, are equal under the law. The Cable Act only said that married women can have their own citizenship separate from their husbands. But none of that goes to establishing that only one citizen parent is sufficient to make a natural born citizen. Giving women more rights under the law did not change the definition of a natural born citizen, which still requires birth in the country to parents who were both its citizens at the time of the child's birth. A change of that definition, which is part of "the supreme Law of the Land," can only be achieved by duly ratified constitutional amendment.

Mario, Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54,62 discusses the necessity of a mother's witness or birth documentation with witnesses to the birth needing to be present in regard to challenge of birth identity. In the Oral Arguments, there is an inference that the Court recognizes the Act of May 24, 1934 as when the father is stripped of being needed anymore to confer U.S. citizenship, so I would like your thoughts on the exchange of:

Mr. Kneedler: Absolutely.

Once a person is a citizen, they are a member of our national community and entitled to all of the rights of any other citizen.

Justice Ginsburg: But you think he might be denaturalized, the way a naturalized citizen could be?

Mr. Kneedler: There would have to be, certainly as a statutory matter and perhaps as a constitutional matter, some defect in the original naturalization or the original...

Justice Ginsburg: But there was no naturalization.

Mr. Kneedler: No, but that's why I think the prospect... I mean, I suppose if in a situation like this the child was recognized as a U.S. citizen on the ground that the parent was a U.S. citizen and then it turned out that the parent was not a U.S. citizen after all, then the child's citizenship could be revoked on the ground that it was fraudulently or improperly procured, so it would be a situation with a factual predicate for the grant of citizenship in the first place.

...

Justice Ginsburg: Mr. Kneedler, I have this problem with it.

You would surely have a huge statelessness problem if you didn't recognize that the child born abroad to U.S. citizens is a U.S. citizen because, as you point out in most countries in the world, they go by blood, not by land of birth.

So... but you don't have that situation with... an alien coming to our shores is a citizen of someplace.

So the... you call the child born abroad an alien, but in most places in the world that child would not be a citizen of the place in which that person is born; isn't that so?

Mr. Kneedler: Well, again, that may depend.

I mean, if you have a child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents, that may be true, it may not be true, depending on the country.

Justice Ginsburg: Well, I thought you said in your brief that in most places, and I think it's right, they do not go on just solely, they go on the parentage.

...

Justice Ginsburg: Mr. Kneedler, IF CONGRESS WENT BACK TO THE WAY IT WAS WHEN EVERYTHING WAS DETERMINED BY THE FATHER'S CITIZENSHIP, GO BACK BEFORE 1934, suppose Congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. citizen mothers where the father is an alien.

That's the way it used to be in the bad old days.

I take it from your argument if Congress wanted to go back to that, it would not offend anything in the U.S. Constitution to do so.

Mr. Kneedler: It would be subject to judicial review, and under the facially legitimate bona fide standard of Kleindienst v. Mandel and Fiallo, it would be necessary to ask what Congress was up to in a situation like that, so we are not suggesting that there is...

Justice Ginsburg: Suppose Congress wants to restore the way it was, the way it was for most of our Nation's history, that the father's citizenship gets transferred to the child, not the mother's?

Mr. Kneedler: Given the developments of equal protection under the law in this country, this Court might well conclude that it would not be facially legitimate for Congress simply to decide to go back to as you described it, the bad old days where all rights were thought to derive from the father or the husband.

So we are not suggesting that.

The transcript and tape is available at:http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2071/argument

Mr. Kneedler: The opinion of the Court in No. 99-2071, Tuan Nguyen versus The Immigration and Naturalization Service will be announced by Justice Kennedy.

Argument of Justice Kennedy

Mr. Kennedy: Section 1409 of Title 8 United State Code governs the acquisition of United States citizenship by persons who are born to one United States citizen parent and one noncitizen parent when the parents are unmarried and when the child is born outside of the United States.

The statute imposes different requirements for the child’s acquisition of citizenship depending upon whether the citizen parent is the mother or the father.

In particular, a citizen father is required to legitimate the child or acknowledge paternity under oath or established paternity by adjudication but one of those acts must occur before the child turns 18.

Tuan Nguyen was born in Vietnam, his father is Joseph Boulais, an American citizen and his mother was a Vietnamese.

Boulais and the child’s mother were not married.

When Nguyen was just 6-years-old Boulais brought him to the United States and Nguyen was raised here by his father and was a lawful permanent resident.

After Nguyen was convicted of sexual assault on a child, INS, Immigration and Naturalization Service, initiated deportation proceedings against him as an alien.

Nguyen eventually asserted that he is a United States citizen by virtue of the blood tie to his father Boulais.

When Nguyen was 28 years old, Boulais obtained an order of parentage from the Texas Court.

Because Boulais did not obtained that order before he reached the age of 18, however, the Board of Immigration Appeals determined that Section 1409 had not been satisfied.

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the statutory distinction between citizen mothers and citizen fathers is consistent with the constitutional guarantee of equal protection, we now affirm.

For agenda based distinction to withstand equal protection scrutiny, it must be established at least that the challenged classification serves important governmental interest and that discriminatory means employed or substantially related to the achievement of those interests or objectives.

Section 1409 is substantially related to the achievement of two governmental objectives: first, the statute bares a substantial relation to the governmental interest in assuring that a biological parent-child relationship exists.

In the case of the mother the relation is verifiable from the birth itself, the mother’s status is documented in most instances by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses who attest to her having given birth.

In the case of the father, however, the uncontestable fact is that he need not be present at the birth if he is present furthermore that circumstance is not incontrovertible proof of fatherhood.

Fathers and mothers does not similarly situated with respect to the event of birth and proof of biological parenthood.

Section 1409 represents a permissible judgment by Congress that the father must act to provide the assurance of biological fatherhood that is inherent in the mother’s relationship to the birth of the child.

Second, Section 1409 substantially furthers the important governmental interest in insuring at least the potential for genuine relationship between the citizen parent and child to develop.

Such a relationship not only provides a bond between the citizen child and the parent, it also ties the child through the citizen parent to the United States which is the very basis of meaningful citizenship.

A mother knows in every instance that a child exists and is hers and has at least some opportunity for contact with the child.

In the case of the father, biology does not provide these assurances.

Section 1409, represents a permissible effort by Congress to take account of this difference by requiring the father to engage in some form of conduct acknowledging paternity before the child turns 18.

The statute insures at least an initial contact between father and child, and thus the opportunity for a relationship to develop.

We have never required a gender-based statute to achieve some ultimate objective in every instance in order to survive equal protection scrutiny.

Substantial furtherance of the interest is sufficient.

The statute is consistent with the constitutional guarantee of equal protection to fail to acknowledge even our most basic biological differences such as the fact that a mother must be present at birth but the father need not be.

Risks making the guarantee of equal protection superficial and so disserving it, mechanistic classification of all of our differences as stereotypes would operate to obscure those misconceptions and prejudices that are real.

The distinction embodied in the statutory scheme here at issue is not marked by misconception and prejudice nor does it show disrespect for either class.

The difference between men and women in relation to the birth process is a real one, and the principle of the equal protection does not forbid Congress to address the problem at hand in a manner specific to each gender.

Justice Scalia has filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Thomas joins; Justice O’Connor has filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer join.

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001) deals with deciding U.S. citizenship by birth out of the United States to a U.S. citizen father and an alien mother who were not married at the time of the child’s birth. The Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld Congress’s statute, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1409(a), and held that it did not violate equal protection. The dissenters were Justices O’Connor, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer.

Section 1409(a) treats U.S. citizen fathers differently than it does U.S. citizen mothers in the case of children born out of the United States to parents who are not married. In upholding the discrimination, the Court said that Congress was justified in wanting to assure that there is a biological relationship between the parent and child, more easily verified in the case of mothers.

The Court also said that imposing different conditions on fathers was designed to ensure that there was a real relationship to the U.S. citizen father and therefore attachment to the United States. The Court explained:

The second important governmental interest furthered in a substantial manner by § 1409(a)(4) is the determination to ensure that the child and the citizen parent have some demonstrated opportunity or potential to develop not just a relationship that is recognized, as a formal matter, by the law, but one that consists of the real, everyday ties that provide a connection between child and citizen parent and, in turn, the United States. See id., at 438-440 (opinion of STEVENS, J.). In the case of a citizen mother and a child born overseas, the opportunity for a meaningful relationship between citizen parent and child inheres in the very event of birth, an event so often critical to our constitutional and statutory understandings of citizenship. The mother knows that the child is in being and is hers and has an initial point of contact with him. There is at least an opportunity for mother and child to develop a real, meaningful relationship.

The same opportunity does not result from the event of birth, as a matter of biological inevitability, in the case of the unwed father. Given the 9-month interval between conception and birth, it is not always certain that a father will know that a child was conceived, nor is it always clear that even the mother will be sure of the father's identity. This fact takes on particular significance in the case of a child born overseas and out of wedlock. One concern in this context has always been with young people, men for the most part, who are on duty with the Armed Forces in foreign countries. See Department of Defense, Selected Manpower Statistics 48, 74 (1999) (reporting that in 1969, the year in which Nguyen was born, there were 3,458,072 active duty military personnel, 39,506 of whom were female); Department of Defense, Selected Manpower Statistics 29 (1970) (noting that 1,041,094 military personnel were stationed in foreign countries in 1969); Department of Defense, Selected Manpower Statistics 49, 76 (1999) (reporting that in 1999 there were 1,385,703 active duty military personnel, 200,287 of whom were female); id., at 33 (noting that 252,763 military personnel were stationed in foreign countries in 1999).

When we turn to the conditions which prevail today, we find that the passage of time has produced additional and even more substantial grounds to justify the statutory distinction. The ease of travel and the willingness of Americans to visit foreign countries have resulted in numbers of trips abroad that must be of real concern when we contemplate the prospect of accepting petitioners' argument, which would mandate, contrary to Congress' wishes, citizenship by male parentage subject to no condition save the father's previous length of residence in this country. In 1999 alone, Americans made almost 25 million trips abroad, excluding trips to Canada and Mexico. See U. S. Dept. of Commerce, 1999 Profile of U. S. Travelers to Overseas Destinations 1 (Oct. 2000). Visits to Canada and Mexico add to this figure almost 34 million additional visits. See U. S. Dept. of Commerce, U. S. Resident Travel to Overseas Countries, Historical Visitation 1989-1999, p. 1 (Oct. 2000). And the average American overseas traveler spent 15.1 nights out of the United States in 1999. 1999 Profile of U. S. Travelers to Overseas Destinations, supra, at 4.

Principles of equal protection do not require Congress to ignore this reality. To the contrary, these facts demonstrate the critical importance of the Government's interest in ensuring some opportunity for a tie between citizen father and foreign born child which is a reasonable substitute for the opportunity manifest between mother and child at the time of birth. Indeed, especially in light of the number of Americans who take short sojourns abroad, the prospect that a father might not even know of the conception is a realistic possibility. See Miller, supra, at 439 (opinion of STEVENS, J.). Even if a father knows of the fact of conception, moreover, it does not follow that he will be present at the birth of the child. Thus, unlike the case of the mother, there is no assurance that the father and his biological child will ever meet. Without an initial point of contact with the child by a father who knows the child is his own, there is no opportunity for father and child to begin a relationship. Section 1409 takes the unremarkable step of ensuring that such an opportunity, inherent in the event of birth as to the mother-child relationship, exists between father and child before citizenship is conferred upon the latter.

The importance of the governmental interest at issue here is too profound to be satisfied merely by conducting a DNA test. The fact of paternity can be established even without the father's knowledge, not to say his presence. Paternity can be established by taking DNA samples even from a few strands of hair, years after the birth. See Federal Judicial Center, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 497 (2d ed. 2000). Yet scientific proof of biological paternity does nothing, by itself, to ensure contact between father and child during the child's minority.

Congress is well within its authority in refusing, absent proof of at least the opportunity for the development of a relationship between citizen parent and child, to commit this country to embracing a child as a citizen entitled as of birth to the full protection of the United States, to the absolute right to enter its borders, and to full participation in the political process. If citizenship is to be conferred by the unwitting means petitioners urge, so that its acquisition abroad bears little relation to the realities of the child's own ties and allegiances, it is for Congress, not this Court, to make that determination. Congress has not taken that path but has instead chosen, by means of § 1409, to ensure in the case of father and child the opportunity for a relationship to develop, an opportunity which the event of birth itself provides for the mother and child. It should be unobjectionable for Congress to require some evidence of a minimal opportunity for the development of a relationship with the child in terms the male can fulfill.Id. at 64-67.

Indeed, the Court concluded that Congress sought “to ensure that the child and the citizen parent have some demonstrated opportunity or potential to develop not just a relationship that is recognized, as a formal matter, by the law, but one that consists of the real, everyday ties that provide a connection between child and citizen parent and, in turn, the United States.. Id. at 64-65. The Court did not believe that mere biological paternity was sufficient for the child to develop a true attachment to the United States, for it saw the relationship with the parents as the key in developing allegiance to the United States. Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations said the same about the mere place of birth. The Court gave utmost importance to the reality of a tie and relationship between a U.S. citizen parent and his or her child. It saw that tie as a means by which to foster and promote “the realities of the child’s own ties and allegiance” to the United States.

This second justification is very relevant to the concept of a natural born citizen, which requires birth to parents who are both U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth and we can see why. With a natural born citizen, it is not positive law that creates the relationship, but rather the natural relationship between parents and child. As I have always argued, mothers have as much influence as fathers over the citizenship and allegiance of their children. That is the reason that both parents need to be citizens and not none or even just one. Also, like mere biological paternity is not enough to instill in a child attachment and allegiance to the United States, so too mere birth in the United States is not sufficient. The reason we need birth in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents is so that the child from the moment of birth will develop a tie or relationship to that land and those citizen parents which will in turn instill in their child an undivided love and attachment to the United States.

The Nguyen Court said it was up to Congress to make policy decisions regarding whether a child born out of the United States had sufficient allegiance to the United States to be able to acquire the right to be a citizen of the United States from the moment of birth. Well, it was up to the Framers to make such policy decision regarding allegiance when defining a natural born citizen and requiring that future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the Military be natural born citizens. Their decision was incorporated into the Constitution and became part of the “supreme Law of the Land.” Their decision needs to be respected unless changed by duly ratified constitutional amendment.

When it comes to defining a natural born citizen, as both Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) demonstrate, the matter is settled. It means a child born in a country to parents who were both its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. All natural born citizens are citizens ipso facto without any doubt. As we can see from Wong Kim Ark and Nguyen, defining a citizen, who is not a natural born citizen, is more involved and presents various doubts, for there are various legal ways by which one can become such a citizen, with each one requiring the proof of certain birth facts and subsequent circumstances. Under out constitutional system, one can become a citizen who is not a natural born citizen by the force of the Fourteenth Amendment (as was the case in Wong Kim Ark), naturalization Acts of Congress (as was the case analyzed in Nguyen), and treaties. Any law passed by Congress defining who such a citizen is cannot offend the Constitution. That includes not offending our equal protection jurisprudence. For Congress to discriminate on the basis of gender who is or is not to become such a citizen, as Nguyen explained, putting aside that Congress has more power in the area of immigration and naturalization, Congress’s discrimination must serve "important governmental objectives” and the discriminatory means employed must be "substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.” Id. at 60. The Court in Nguyen held that Congress did make that showing. But the debate about what Congress can or cannot do when defining a citizen has nothing to do with a natural born citizen who is constitutionally outside its naturalization powers, and still defined at common law as a child born in the Untied States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth. As I have demonstrated, the Nguyen decision provides an insightful analysis on why not only birth in the United States, but also birth two U.S. citizen parents, are needed to make a natural born citizen.

The Framers through Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 informed that the allegiance of a “Citizen” of the United States, whether at birth or after birth, was insufficient to make one eligible to be elected President. Rather, they decided that only the allegiance of a “natural born Citizen” would do. The Nguyen decision, along with Wong Kim Ark, highlight the reality that in the case of a child born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents (Nguyen) or born in the United States to one or no U.S. citizen parents (Wong Kim Ark), the allegiance of the child can be strong enough to make a “citizen” of the United States at birth. But that allegiance is not strong enough to make a “natural born citizen.”

Your four part dissertation on July 8, 2015 at 8:47 PM about Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001) is a "still waters run deep" dissertation compared to the "shallow babbling brook" comments that you have been responding to at Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

A few minutes ago, after a 3 month vacation from reading the comments by your antagonists at Cafe Con Leche Republicans, I took a quick look at the comments for the first time since March 31, 2015, and got bored quickly after a few minutes of reading the comments of Bryan/aka Not Linda and Slartibartfast/aka Kevin/aka 40 something PhD mathematician at a university somewhere. Sheesh, they are so shallow in their mockery and their ridicule of you.

Here is a sample of a shallow comment by Kevin/Slartibartfast:

"April 17, 2015 at 7:00 pm

"Why does the public need to be educated? Neither you [Mario] nor any other birthers have been able to gain any traction with your crank theories and the courts keep ruling against you. The honest people who have cared enough to look into the matter understand that President Obama is unquestionably eligible and Rafael is probably eligible as well.

"If I really felt that Rafael was ineligible I might be irked that you and your ilk had muddied the waters with your dishonest smear-mongering, but I think he is most likely a natural born citizen and that it therefore makes more sense to attack him on his words and actions (which I believe show him to be completely unsuited to the presidency).

"On the other hand, annoying you must mildly amuse at least 3 or 4 other people reading this, which is a lot more impact than debunking one of your dishonest theories for the umpteenth time.

"Posted by Slartibartfast"

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario, your and David Farrar's comments on Cafe Con Leche Republicans are substantive, however, in my personal preference, instead of spending (??wasting??) your time with the likes of paid or unpaid Obama Obots, aks "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers Bryan and Kevin, it sure would be nice to read point-counterpoint with erudite scholars like the persons listed below, either on their blogs/email or on your Natural Born Citizen blog/emails:

Thanks Mario, this really adds to the case that we make on the NBC issue regarding sole nationality and sole allegiance at birth with citizen parents of the same nationality and born on the same soil as that nationality one is born into through the parents. In regard to the use of Executive Orders and a discussion by the Court decision taking in aspects and language of the 14th Amendment (see #7 @ p. 641), the Court said regarding a President [Truman] asserting powers contrary to the Constitution, that:

"The burden of establishing a delegation of powerto the United States,or the prohibition of power to the States,is upon those making the claim."Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 (1948)@ 653

I have debated the notion that based on that statement, we can springboard this into a legal demand that those claiming to be acting under the authority vested in them "as President by the Constitution of the United States", that if they have never had their birth identity vetted, that we can use that page 653 quote from Bute with Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54,62), which states@ 54 : “The mother's relation is verifiable from the birth itself and is documented by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses to the birth.”@62:” In the case of the mother, the relation is verifiable from the birth itself. The mother's status is documented in most instances by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses who attest to her having given birth.”

Obama confessed that as of 1995 and all years previously since he was of age, perhaps from 1979 to 1995, he was incapable and utterly unable to find a trace of his own birth in the Hawaii Bureau of Vital Statistics or any hospital:"You know, as soon as the Old Man died, the lawyers contacted all those who might have a claim to the inheritance. Unlike my mum, Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark's father was."Dreams from My Father, p. 345 Barack Obama http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=280073

So between Bute, Nguyen, and Obama's own biography, I think this also makes a winning argument that any Hawaii birth doc is 100% FRAUD and of a post 1995 MANUFACTURE.

Again, thanks for the reply and your untiring service in defending the Constitution of the United States and helping educate all on this issue. Many thanks!

Can you take a few minutes to show a couple of the differences and similarities between "Ex parte Reynolds" and the "Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001)." In your previous post on this thread on July 8, 2015 at 8:43 PM, you wrote in the intro sentence in the 4 part post that "Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001) deals with deciding U.S. citizenship by birth out of the United States to a U.S. citizen father and an alien mother who were not married at the time of the child’s birth."

Maybe the Democratic Obots, Obama defenders can learn how to analyze what is not agreeable to their political agenda. Maybe the Obots, aka the "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers, who mock and ridicule you on Cafe Con Leche Republicans and who still promote the 2008-2015 theory, the convenient myth that only one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient to transform a "citizen" into a "natural born Citizen" and eligible to the Office of President, maybe they can get past their puerile infantilsm by consistent deeper thinking. Also, maybe the Republican "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers can learn something too about the U.S. Constitution and immigration and naturalization statutes.

“[W]hen the question arises as to what people a person belongs, what rule is to govern in the solution of the problem?

There is no statute law on the subject. We find that the question before the country at one time, as to who was a white person and who was a member of the African race, was solved by legislative or constitutional enactments defining the nationality of persons according to the quantum of white or African blood in the veins of the persons.

These laws were all enactments of the states, and had reference to the African race alone. The United States never had any statute law on the subject (and has not now) with regard to persons who are not subject to its jurisdiction. Now, in this case, as the 38th article of the treaty only permits an American citizen, or a white person, to expatriate himself -- to throw off his allegiance to the government of the United States -- and place himself beyond the jurisdiction of its courts by marriage to a Choctaw and residence in their country, we must somewhere find a rule to define who is a Choctaw, in [**15] a case where there is mixed parentage. Does the quantum of Indian blood in the veins of the party determine the fact as to whether such party is of the white or Indian race? If so, how much Indian blood does it take to make an Indian, or how much white blood to make a person a member of the body politic known as American citizens? Where do we find any rule on the subject which makes the quantum of blood the standard of nationality? Certainly not from the statute law of the United States; nor is it to be found in the common law.

In the case of United States v. Sanders [Case No. 16,220], the court held that the quantum of Indian blood in the veins did not determine the condition of the offspring of a union between a white person and an Indian; but further held that the condition of the mother did determine the question. And the court referred to the common law as authority for the position that the condition of the mother fixed the status of the offspring. The court is sustained in the first position by the common law, and also in the last position, if applied to the offspring of a connection between a freeman and a slave, upon the principle handed down from the Roman civil law, [**16] that the owner of a female animal is entitled to all her brood, according to the maxim partus sequitur ventrem. But by the common law this rule is reversed with regard to the offspring of free persons. Their offspring follows the condition of the father, and the rule partus sequitur patrem prevails in determining their status. 1 Bouv. Inst., 198, § 502; 31 Barb. 486; 2 Bouv. Law Dict. 147; Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. [28 U.S.] 242. This is the universal maxim of the common law with regard to freemen -- as old as the common law, or even as the Roman civil law, and as well settled as the rule partus sequitur ventrem -- the one being a rule fixing the status of freemen; the other being a rule defining the ownership of property -- the one applicable to different political communities or states, whose citizens are in the enjoyment of the civil rights possessed by people in a state of freedom; the other defining the condition of the offspring which had been tainted by the bondage of the mother.

No other rules than the ones above enumerated ever did prevail in this or any other civilized country. In the case of Ludlam v. Ludlam, 31 Barb. 486, the court says: "The universal maxim of [**17] the common law being partus sequitur patrem, it is sufficient for the application of this doctrine that the father should be a subject lawfully, and without breach of his allegiance beyond sea, no matter what may be the condition of the mother."

The law of nations, which becomes, when applicable to an existing condition of affairs in a country, a part of the common law of that country, declares the same rule. Vattel, in his Law of Nations (page 101), says: "As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, these children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to their rights. * * * The country of the father is, therefore, that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent." Again, on page 102, Vattel says: "By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights." This law of nature, as far as it has become a part of the common law, in the absence of any positive enactment on the subject, must be the rule in this case.”

"Subject is derived from the Latin word, “sub” and “jacio,” and means one who is “under” the power of another; but a citizen is a “unit” of a mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty."

Ramsay's words put to rest the argument that "natural born subject" and "natural born Citizen" are the same thing.

Here is what The New Englander, Vol. III-1845 said about the meaning of a citizen an natural born citizen in an article entitled, “Massachusetts and South Carolina,” accessed at https://books.google.com/books?id=gGNJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA414&dq=%22excludes+all+persons+owing+allegiance+by+birth+to+foreign+states%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OjsKU_vYAue0sQTQq4C4DA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22excludes%20all%20persons%20owing%20allegiance%20by%20birth%20to%20foreign%20states%22&f=false :

As used by writers on natural law, the term [citizen] designates the status of an individual considered as a member of the state. It imports, on the part of the citizen, the duty of allegiance and obedience; and on the part of the state, the correlative duty of protecting its members, by its force and its laws, in the enjoyment of essential fundamental rights. And all free persons, born within the limits of a state, or who, not being native born, have been duly admitted to equality of condition with those who are, are held to be members and citizens of that state, unless expressly excluded by its municipal laws.

Id. at 413.

"The citizens," says Vattel, "are the members of the state." Id. at 414.

The word citizen, therefore, distinguishes those who are under the allegiance of one government, from those who are under the allegiance of another. As between distinct states, it is coextensive with subject; but unlike that term, it imports something more than simple subjection. Wherever used, it implies that the individual is not merely under, but of the state, and in that relation is entitled, as against the state, to the possession of certain rights.

Id. at 414.

We conclude, then, that wherever definite personal rights, recognized by the law, depend upon the use of the term citizen,--whether in the law of nations, as received and applied in this country, in treaties, in the Constitution of the United States, in the practice of the Federal Courts, or in the constitutions and bills of rights of the states,--it applies to all persons, who, being born under the jurisdiction of a state or the United States, or having been duly naturalized, owe allegiance and its incidents according to the doctrine of the common law.

Id. at 418

The expression ' citizen of the United States' occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ' natural born citizen' is used, and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states ; in the other cases, the word ' citizen' is used without the adjective, and excludes persons owing allegiance to foreign states, unless naturalized under our laws. The discussions in the convention furnish no indication that there was any other distinction present in the minds of its members.

The writer explained that the word “citizen” as used in the Constitution was used in the sense that it was used in public law or the law of nations. p. 413. The writer explained the difference between a “citizen” and a “subject,” explaining that being a citizen “implies that the individual is not merely under, but of the state, and in that relation is entitled, as against the state, to the possession of certain rights.” p. 414. The writer saw a clear distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen.” They saw those terms defined under the law of nations which was “received and applied in this country.” They cite and quote Vattel on citizenship, stating that Vattel defined a citizen as a “member of the state” and nothing more. In their view, citizenship depended upon allegiance to the United States by birth or naturalization. pp. 413-14. As to a natural born citizen, the clause “excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.” Surely, in order not to owe allegiance to any foreign state, one had to be born in the country to citizen parents. This was the law of nations definition of a natural born citizen.

So, the writer told us that a citizen was fundamentally different from a subject. They cited to the law of nations and told us that that law was “received and applied in this country.” They cited and quoted Vattel on citizenship. And they defined a natural born citizen as not owing any foreign allegiance to any foreign power. That natural born citizen could only be defined under the law of nations, which did provide for such a status at birth, and not the English common law, which allowed for dual and conflicting allegiances at birth. And as we know the law of nations defined a natural born citizen as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens. See Minor v. Happersett (1875) (gave this exact law of nations definition of the “natives, or natural-born citizens). So we can see how scholars in 1845 were relying not upon the English common law but rather upon the law of nations and Emer de Vattel to define national citizens and natural born citizens.

I could better understand AMERICA today if I were a nihilist. For example, the Supreme Court has taken upon itself the job of changing the meaning of a good and ancient English word, viz marriage. I am not sure this is at all a good idea. Some in the CA legislature want to eliminate the words husband and wife. Soon it will be he him she and her. In spite of this the nation has serious problems which might be better places to put attention and energy. Am I and a few others alone in considering radiation, e.g. Fukushima Daiichi a problem? Or the very serious unemployment situation?Now I have no doubt about the meaning of "natural born citizen". With a modest amount of information I would have known easily in high school had the issue arisen but then that was the 1950's. There are some mathematical idea that are hard to grasp--but natural born citizen is merely a matter of definition. Ted Cruz has sufficient education to know what he is doing. Hence, he is putting self aggrandizement above the nation's welfare. But failure to do so would mean failure in the next election unless one were a Ron Paul. The nihilist has abandoned meaning. He probably still wants a good meal and a cigar and drink, but when he enters politics anything goes. He is a lot like a cancer cell. He has taken one step beyond simple dishonesty. Or he has been gradually pushed into something he never dreamed of by years of lying and fraud. Hilary Clinton might fit into this category. After a while words mean what they decide in the moment they mean. Later they forget what that was and start out in a new direction. Since society itself has moved in the direction of nihilism it is hardly noticeable. At some point such a society runs out of gas. It has so mixed things up that nothing works. Chaos results. And mob rule. Some things seem to work for a while and then fizzle out. Running the USA on emotionalism will end with the destruction of this nation. Forms matter. Just try putting diesel fuel in your internal combustion engine!

William St. George, I concur that Ted Cruz knows he's violating the U.S. Constitution.

Recently, this came to light in: THE END OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY By J.B. Williams March 29, 2015 http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams300.htm

"In a campaign interview during his freshman senate race, a GOP Texas State Committee member sat down with the young candidate to ask a few poignant vetting questions, and here are the questions and answers from that interview… (Redacted information is to protect the witness at this moment, but the witness is willing to offer sworn testimony)Interviewer: “Hello Mr. Cruz, it's a pleasure to meet you. My name is (redacted). I am a (redacted) County GOP Precinct Chair and you have my support and vote. I have one question for you if I may?”Cruz: “Sure, go ahead.”Interviewer: “What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”

Apart from that article, we know that Rafael Edward Cruz, Jr. was born as a Canadian Born citizen (as his own birth certificate says) http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/19/ted-cruz-releases-birth-certificate-and-is-apparently-a-canadian-citizen-but/and that Rafael Cruz Sr., is on record saying that at some time in the pasthe naturalized himself as a Canadian Citizenhttp://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/06/20/193585553/how-ted-cruzs-father-shaped-his-views-on-immigrationit would be nice to know precisely what year that naturalization of the father was, as whether or not it was also done so by the mother, Canada might someday lay the claim that by its own laws and paternal power that Rafael Cruz Jr. might be a Canadian Natural Born Citizen under the Laws of Canada in 1971. I am uncertain of the full details of the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947, but for Cruz to be its citizen until recently, it may indicate at least his father naturalized to Canada prior to his birth, and the mother's Canadian nationality attachment as a dual-national (i.e., U.S. and Canada) at the time of "Ted's" birth should also be sought after, it seems to me.

Given the historical and legal record which informs on the meaning of a natural born citizen, there should be no doubt in Senator Ted Cruz's mind that he is not a natural born citizen. If a layperson can figure it out, so can he with his legal background. With his constitutional law background, Cruz should have no problem understanding that a natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were both its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797); Minor v. Happersett (1875); accord U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

What is also amazing is that Cruz recently said that he did not know that he was a Canadian citizen and that when he realized it, he decided to renounce that citizenship. He made such a statement even though there have been filed since 2008 numerous law suits about de facto President Barack Obama's citizenship to Great Britain and Kenya and to the United States (assuming he was born in the United States) at the time of his birth disqualifying him from being a natural born citizen.

Could Cruz’s own non-natural born citizen status also be a reason why he has not spoken out on Obama not being a natural born citizen?

IT is pure contempt of the Constitution and the law and those who want to live by the Constitution and the law for President B. S. Aquino 3rd, his financial cronies and foreign “advisers” to insist that Sen. Grace Poe-Llamanzares should be considered a possible candidate for president in 2016, regardless of what the Constitution says. It is an open invitation to trouble, big trouble, including a possible uprising against Aquino and the oligarchy.

I have written screeds on this subject, and did not wish to inflict one more word on my readers about it, until PNoy met with Poe and Sen. Francis Escudero to talk about it. He reportedly suggested that Poe and Interior Secretary Mar Roxas, the presumptive Liberal Party presidential candidate, get together to agree on a common administration candidate.

I am no supporter of Mar Roxas, but the fellow has already taken so much garbage from PNoy, and he doesn’t deserve any more. I would understand it if someone with utterly irreproachable credentials had risen from within the ranks of the ruling Liberal Party to challenge the party commitment to Mar Roxas, but Poe? Who and what exactly is she? She is a party outsider, and is not even constitutionally qualified to be in the Senate, much less daydream of the presidency.

I have said, and I will say it again, and again, and again, that Grace Poe is not qualified under the 1987 Constitution to run for President, Vice President, or even for senator or congressman. She is not a natural-born Filipino, and for PNoy to insist that she could run for president despite this fatal disqualification is like Caligula making a consul of his horse Incitatus, or some unschooled duck farmer entering his duck in a cockfight (“pintakasi”).

The Constitution is as clear as the clearest sunlight on this issue, and it needs no interpretation of any kind from anybody. But what violates one’s basic decency and dignity is that PNoy, his cronies and his foreign puppeteers seem to believe they could turn this purely constitutional issue into a “popularity contest” and let some crooked survey and an ignorant and deranged mob decide to spare Grace Poe from the rigors of following the Constitution and the law.

To quote the Constitution for the nth time, Section 2 of Article VII provides: “No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election.” Sec. 3, same Article, says the Vice President “shall have the same qualifications and term of office and be elected with and in the same manner as the President.”

Similarly, Sec. 3 of Article VI provides that “no person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, and, on the day of the election, is at least thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election.” Likewise, no person may be a member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen, at least twenty-five years of age and a resident of their district for at least one year immediately preceding the election.

Therefore, whether one is running for president, vice president, senator or congressman, it is not enough to be a citizen; one must be a “natural-born citizen.” What does “natural-born citizen” mean? The Constitution itself, not a mere Webster, Oxford or Cambridge dictionary, supplies the meaning. Sec. 2 of Article IV says: “Natural-born citizens are those citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.” Those born before January 17, 1973 of alien fathers and Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority, are “deemed to be natural-born citizens.”

So for the nth time, I say Grace Poe is not a natural-born Filipino. She knows this, or she ought to be the first one to know. She was born of unknown parents, abandoned inside the Jaro Metropolitan Cathedral in Iloilo City, where she was found by a woman churchgoer on Sept 3, 1968. She was thus stateless from birth. She was adopted by the actor Fernando Poe Jr. and his actress wife Susan Roces, who were married on Dec. 25, 1968. She took the citizenship of the Poes. This entailed performing a legal act, which would have been completely unnecessary if she were natural born. This constitutes the first living and subsisting proof that she is not a natural born Filipino.

Later in life, she renounced her Philippine citizenship “absolutely and entirely” to become a citizen of the United States. This was long before the Philippine dual citizenship law took effect in 2003. She could not claim to have opted for dual citizen then, even assuming dual citizenship was allowed under US law. In the meantime, she married an American citizen, gave birth to three American children, and raised an American family in Virginia.In 2005, after her adoptive father FPJ lost his fight for the Philippine presidency in 2004 and died a few months later, she came home, using her US passport as an American citizen. She traveled several times from the Philippines to the US and back, using the same passport until Dec. 27, 2009. She remained an American citizen all throughout.

In 2010, PNoy appointed her chairperson of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board. Then, as now, only a Filipino citizen was eligible for this position. But Grace Poe was still an American citizen when she was appointed. She even acquired a new US passport from the Washington Passport Agency in 2011. According to the Federal Register, the daily journal of the US government, she renounced her US citizenship during the second quarter of 2012, ending June 30. It was only upon the US official acceptance of this renunciation that she lost her US citizenship. She got a Philippine passport only in 2014.Therefore her appointment as MTRCB chair was void and illegal ab initio. If she had executed any statement saying she was already a Filipino citizen when she took her oath of office, then she committed perjury, and falsified the relevant official documents. These are not minor offenses. If Aquino had appointed her to the MTRCB, knowing fully well that she was still an American citizen, then he himself committed an impeachable offense. But this was not the only offense of the parties. Since she received an official salary and other emoluments for her illegal appointment, she and the appointing power violated the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

A year later, after renouncing her US citizenship, Grace Poe ran for the Senate and “won” in the infamous “60-30-10” across-the-board arrangement in favor of PNoy’s senatorial candidates. This required a natural-born Filipino citizenship and a two-year residence in the country, as such citizen, immediately preceding the election. Grace Poe lacked both.

She clearly perjured herself and falsified her certificate of candidacy by stating under oath that she was a natural-born Filipino, and that she had been living in the country, as a natural-born citizen, for not less than two years immediately preceding the election. Both are serious offenses, the second more serious than the first, with a long prescriptive period.

Poe should have been instantly disqualified from running, or from taking office, if her offense had been seasonably discovered. But it is only now—two years later—- that the facts have surfaced. Her political life has been one great lie, but her supporters are trying to invoke her so-called high “popularity ratings” to intimidate people from raising questions about her fitness to remain in the Senate and to dream about the presidency or vice presidency in 2016.

Their game plan appears to be as follows:

Let Poe file her certificate of candidacy despite her not being a natural-born Filipino and her lack of 10-year residence immediately before the election—she started residing in the Philippines as a Filipino citizen only in 2012, or a mere four years after she had renounced her US citizenship;

Flood the media and all political space with paid propaganda drivel showing her alleged “popularity” with the masses;

Let those questioning the constitutionality of her candidacy file for her disqualification before the Comelec, and let the Comelec sit on any such petition or throw it out instantly;Should anyone raise the issue before the Supreme Court, try to pay off the justices so that they would throw out the petition or sit on it until Smartmatic proclaims Poe’s victory and she takes her oath as “president-elect.” Then turn the constitutional issue into a political one, with Poe and her supporters invoking the bogus principle of “vox populi, vox Dei.”

It is a perverted way of running a democracy. But PNoy, his business cronies and foreign advisers seem to believe they could get away with it and have their way.

I don’t believe we should allow them to. Grace Poe should be removed from the Senate, where she occupies a seat that belongs to a natural-born Filipino, and prevented from tarnishing the race for presidency.

All those who are trying to use Grace Poe to exploit the ignorance of the ignorant and the gullibility of the rest should be dealt with more severely. They should be exposed by name, and prosecuted in the appropriate forum at the appropriate time, as the people’s real enemies. We, the people, should be prepared to confront Aquino and his cabal should they decide to disrespect and trample upon our Constitution and our laws and the sensibilities of those who want to live by our Constitution and our laws.

I find it interesting that Ramsay used the work citizens when describing inheritance not the word citizen. I think that pretty much nails it for Article II; of course the Progressive Movement will disagree. Good article!

1/A story with a familiar soundorAn Article V convention of states legislatures sounds better

Mario,

That's an excellent question.

The Philippine Constitution has the clear language that the U.S. Constitution needs for president, vice president, representative and senator. With the population we have now in the United States, I'm for requiring Federal Representatives and Senators to also be “natural born Citizens” as defined by John Jay in his seminal suggestion in his note to George Washington and which was accepted by the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution.

Below are the Philippine Constitution quotes from the penultimate and ultimate paragraphs of parts 1 and 2 of your post on July 12, 2015 at 1:45 PM, followed by the first paragraph at 1:47 PM

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

To quote the Constitution for the nth time, Section 2 of Article VII provides:

“No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election.”

Sec. 3, same Article, says the Vice President “shall have the same qualifications and term of office and be elected with and in the same manner as the President.”

Similarly, Sec. 3 of Article VI provides that “no person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, and, on the day of the election, is at least thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election.”

Likewise, no person may be a member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen, at least twenty-five years of age and a resident of their district for at least one year immediately preceding the election.

Continued . . .

Therefore, whether one is running for president, vice president, senator or congressman, it is not enough to be a citizen; one must be a “natural-born citizen.”

What does “natural-born citizen” mean?

The Constitution itself, not a mere Webster, Oxford or Cambridge dictionary, supplies the meaning. Sec. 2 of Article IV says:

“Natural-born citizens are those citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.”

Those born before January 17, 1973 of alien fathers and Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority, are “deemed to be natural-born citizens.”

2/A story with a familiar soundorAn Article V convention of states legislatures sounds better

Someday, soon, the American people will need to be asked for their Article V opinion about Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and presidential eligibility before another POTUS wannabe is elected president with dubious credentials.

Could that next "POTUS wanna be" be my Texas and favorite Federal Senator Ted Cruz? I hope not.

I want Sen. Cruz to admit that he is knowledgeable, not only of Emer de Vattel, Lord Coke, Blackstone, and that many the founders, framers and ratifiers of the Constitution could read Vattel in the original French, including John Jay, but I want Sen. Cruz to admit that he is also aware of the original genesis intent of John Jay's reason for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to his good and longtime friend, General George Washington, presiding over the Constitutional Convention as a "citizen" from Virginia.

I want Sen. Cruz to admit that "born" implies ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by being born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen heterosexual married parents.

The “heterosexual” word is an opportunity for Sen. Cruz, and others, Trump?, Paul?, Fiorina?, Walker?, etc., to clarify that they are aware of the deeper constitutional implications of the June 26, 2015 homosexual marriage decision of the majority of the Supreme Court.

This Q&A below is an example of the ONLY question that will be needed to be asked of a POTUS wannabe after the U.S. constitution is successfully amended with words as clear as the Philippine Constitution:

Question:

Are you are a natural born Citizen by being born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents married to each other before you were born?

Answer:

Yes.

That's simple, huh?

However, if a POTUS wannabe does not respond with one word, "yes," and then stops speaking, because what else is there to say, We the People should be on guard, especially if they respond with a long winded response similar to this famous Q&A from the movies:

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stinking_badges

Question:

"If you're the police, then where are your badges?"

Answer:

"Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges!"

3/A story with a familiar soundorAn Article V convention of states legislatures sounds better

Some examples of possible long winded obfuscation about POTUS eligibility:

Question:

Are you a natural born citizen? Were you born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents married to each other before you were born?

Possible Answer #1:

“Citizen” Obama or __________:Yes, I am a U.S. citizen because at least one of my parents was a U.S citizen on the day I was born on U.S. soil in the warm weather State of Hawaii (In a stage whisper: “I say this now even though in my book the publisher had written that I was born in Kenya and I never corrected it, well, until I wanted to be POTUS”) (or __________).

Possible Answer #2:

“Citizen” Cruz or __________:Yes, I am a U.S. citizen because both of my parents were married to each other and at least one of my parents was a U.S. citizen on the day I was born on the soil of Canada (or __________).

Possible Answer #3:

“Citizen” Rubio or __________:Yes, I am a U.S. citizen under the authority of the Fourteenth Amendment because I was born on U.S. soil even though both of my parents had not become naturalized U.S. citizens and both were still citizens of Cuba (or __________).

Possible Answer #4:

“Citizen” Jindal or Haley or __________:Yes, I am a U.S. citizen under the authority of the Fourteenth Amendment because I was born on U.S. soil even though both of my parents had not become naturalized U.S. citizens and both were still citizens of India (or __________).

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

So, Mario, I wonder what my Texas Senator Ted Cruz, a Constitutional scholar, will choose? Will he choose the approval of the American electorate or the approval of President Washington?

Washington, after his inauguration in New York in Federal Hall on Wall Street, he kissed the bible and said, although it is not a constitutional phrase, “so help me God.” As head of the new administration, he led the Representatives, Senators and others on the walk up Broadway to St. Paul's Chapel where he dedicated the future of the United States to his God whom he acknowledged as the Heavenly Father of Jesus, and the ONLY creator God who knows our hearts.

PS.

Washington did not identify Jesus as God's ONLY final prophet, ONLY final word, ONLY final will and testimony, to distinguish his God, whose personal name is Yahuah (some prefer Yahweh, see the Hebrew “YHWH” of Exodus 3:14,15), from Allah, the God of Islam, but Washington's dedication of America to the Hebrew God, the God of the Jewish and Christian scriptures is internal proof from Washington's own words throughout his entire life (“On my honor and the faith of a Christian...” 1763) that Washington was not a deist as some theistic and atheistic “transformers” of America claim. That being so, it seems to this voter from Texas that Washington the President, Washington the General and Washington the Christian would expect a POTUS wannabe to be on his or her “...honor and the faith of a Christian.”

For a POTUS wannabe to honor the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob—AND Washington and his faith as a Christian, and admit that, as history confirms, that John Jay had ONLY one reason for underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen,” and ONLY one original genesis original intent meaning, ONLY singular U.S. citizenship Only by being born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, now THAT public confession of faith in Article II's original intent would probably transform America for another 228 years.

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

Francisco Tatad has some sack unlike the phony columnists in us who will just call you a birther or lunatic fringe if you say obama has 2 forgerys and is clearly not a nbc. The pols in Philippines are notoriously corrupt just like the gangsters here. If one is born in a country or territory to citizens/subjects/members of that tribe or nation then they are truly natural born. I am sure it has been that way since our earliest civilizations

The Obots argue that the Roman law did not support my interpretation of Vattel's definition of a natural born citizen found at Section 212 in The Law of Nations where he said:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

~~~~~

I have maintained that Vattel's definition of a natural born citizen means a child born in a country to parents who were both citizens at the time of the child's birth. I have also maintained that under the doctrine of coverture, when a woman married her husband, she took on his citizenship and hence the married couple had one unified citizenship which was that of the husband, with their child inheriting that citizenship upon birth to them in their country. Hence the family enjoyed unity of citizenship and allegiance, emanating from the father. Only with both parents being citizens and their child being born in the country in which they were citizens could the child be born not subject to any foreign power, for such birth circumstances and facts cut off any jus sanguinis (right of blood) or jus soli (right of soil) claims upon the child of any foreign country.

We have this explanation of the definition of Roman citizenship.

Civitas, plural Civitates, citizenship in ancient Rome. Roman citizenship was acquired by birth if both parents were Roman citizens (cives), although one of them, usually the mother, might be a peregrinus(“alien”) with connubium (the right to contract a Roman marriage). Otherwise, citizenship could be granted by the people, later by generals and emperors. "civitas". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2015. Web. 12 Jul. 2015

http://www.britannica.com/topic/civitas .

Maybe the Obots can explain what this definition of Roman citizenship means.

Prof. Natelson's 3rd edition of his book, The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant, was published in 2014, and has been advertised on his Independence Institute blog since December 26, 2014. He did not add anything to the text of the 2nd Edition published in 2011, but he did add footnote #25 about Emer de Vattel and how Vattel "clarified" what he meant:

>> "...Vattel wrote of citizenship following "parents," at several later points he clarified that, as in England, foreign-born children followed the status of their fathers."

I wonder.

Does Prof. Natelson intend to imply that U.S. born children followed:

_ONLY the status of the father? (implies dual U.S./foreign citizenship)_ONLY the status of the mother? (implies dual U.S./foreign citizenship)

Or, is it possible???

_ONLY the status of BOTH father AND mother? (implies ONLY singular U.S. citizenship)

On page 147 of the 3rd edition is what Article II section 1 clause 5 "...actually said and meant":

"The Constitution imposed certain qualifications on the President. The Constitution implied, although it did not state explicitly until adoption of the Twelfth Amendment, that the same qualifications applied to the Vice President. Both had to be at least 35 years old, which was a significant requirement in an age in which even people who survived childhood often did not live beyond their 50s. The idea was to better assure a certain amount of maturity and wisdom. Also, both had to have resided within the country for the previous fourteen years.

"Most importantly, the President and Vice President had to be natural-born citizens or citizens at the time of ratification. We know exactly what the founders meant by the phrase "natural-born citizen" because they adapted it from the English legal term, "natural born subject," which in Britain defined who could serve in Parliament or the Privy Council(25). Essentially, a natural-born citizen was one who met either one of two requirements. First, a person qualified if born within the United States or within American territory, even if the person's parents were aliens. Alternatively, an individual qualified even if born outside the country if the individual's father was an American citizen not then engaged in traitorous or felonious activities.

"These birth and residence requirements were designed better to assure that these officers were truly sympathetic to those they were to govern, and to guard against the risk that they might be sympathetic to a foreign power(26).

"There was no constitutional requirement that a President or Vice President be male. The pronoun "he" used throughout the Constitution was generic(27)."

__________"(25)Since the publication of the first edition, several readers have contacted me to argue that "natural born" should be defined as Emer Vattel defined it in his international law treatise. Invariably their argument is driven by hope that Vattel's definition, if applied, would disqualify from the presidency some politician they dislike.

"The Constitution's meaning does not, however, depend on one's political hopes. The document generally employed domestic legal terms according to English usage. As Vattel acknowledged, the English standard for "natural born" varied from the international standard with respect to children born within the country; as to children born outside the country, the rules were the same. (Although at one point in his book Vattel wrote of citizenship following "parents," at several later points he clarified that, as in England, foreign-born children followed the status of their fathers.)

Well, Mario, that's what the Constitution "...actually said and meant."

Maybe adducing John Jay's “original genesis original intent” for underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” will help the good professor clarify Emer de Vattel's articulation of his own “original genesis original intent” about “parents” and “father” in a future edition of his book?

I say “good professor” because, after reading Prof. Natelson's Independence Institute (i2i) blog, and listening to him speak about Article V and the “convention of states to propose amendments,” I really like him. He's a very nice guy. Here he speaks fluent Latin with his daughter Sarah about the Constitution, only 7 minutes:

>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpf2s0RjZ5s

Here are some John Jay and Fourteenth Amendment questions for Prof. Natelson:

Question 1:

Does the good professor think that the founder and New York ratifier, who underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to his good friend General Washington, did not know what his original genesis original intent meaning of "born" was in 1787?

Question 2:

Does the good professor think that Jay meant anything other than the obvious?

Just as "born" implies the necessity of two persons to produce a child, so also does "born" imply the necessity of, by marriage, two U.S. citizens, two U.S. citizen married parents, to produce a singular U.S. citizen.

_ONLY by birth a singular U.S. citizen_ONLY by birth on U.S. soil_ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents

Question 3:

Does the good professor think and intend to imply that Jay meant “EITHER/OR”:

_EITHER singular U.S. citizenship OR dual U.S./foreign citizenship?_EITHER U.S. soil OR foreign soil?_EITHER two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen married parents?

The "zero" U.S. citizen parents is only applicable since the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court “opinion” erroneously interpreted the word "born" in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States...jurisdiction...are citizens...."

Does the good professor really think and intend to imply that "born" in the Fourteenth Amendment was originally intended to be interpreted to mean that a child "born" on foreign soil to two OR one U.S. citizen parent is "...eligible to the Office of President”?

Both, the 1790 Naturalization Act, which designated a child born on foreign soil as a “natural born Citizen,” and the 1795 Naturalization Act, which corrected the 1790 error and designated a child born on foreign as simply a “citizen,” reference two parents who are both U.S. “citizens,” implying two U.S. citizen parents married to each other BEFORE the child was born on foreign soil. Since 1795, all subsequent immigration and naturalization statutes designate children born on foreign soil to two OR one U.S. citizen parents as a “citizen” of the United States and never a “natural born Citizen.”

Since the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court has opined that a child born on U.S. soil to “zero” U.S. citizen parents is a U.S. citizen, a “zero” U.S. citizen parents child is said by “natural born Citizen” new meaning neo-birthers to be “...eligible to the Office of President.”

Question 5:

Does the good professor really agree with the reinterpretation by the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment language, that “All persons born...” ALSO meant born on U.S. soil to ONLY one OR zero U.S. citizen parents?

Question 6:

Does the good professor really disagree that “All persons born...” in 1865 and from generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to PUTUS, could ONLY have been intended to mean ONLY born on U.S. soil to two 1865 Thirteenth Amendment “free” Negroes AND Caucasians, male and female, and imply ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by being born ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents?

Question 7:

Does the good professor really think and intend to imply that “born” in the Fourteenth Amendment was originally intended to imply that birth on U.S. soil to one, ONLY, one U.S. citizen parent would qualify a child as “...eligible to the Office of President?”

Question 8:

Does the good professor think and intend to imply that, in 1865, “...or naturalized in the United States...are citizens...,” which, again, in 1865, thirty-three years before the erroneous 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court “opinion”, obviously could ONLY mean (1) born on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizen parents, or (2) born on U.S. soil to two alien parents, married or not married to each other, does he mean to imply that “naturalized” was ONLY a reference to a child who did NOT have two U.S. citizen married parents, and that “born...in the United States...are citizens...” in 1865 was a reference to being born on U.S. soil to one OR zero U.S. citizen parents?

Prof. Natelson's Independence Institute blog ( http://constitution.i2i.org/ ) does not accept comments, but he does respond to his email which is shown on his “Contact Rob Natelson” page. He has always responded to me, although, since he is a busy man with his Article V speeches and writings in conjunction with ConventionOfStates.com and others, and since I'm just a guy in El Paso, Texas who does not have a lot of letters after my name and so I cannot post on Social Science Research Network (SSRN)*, his responses, although they have been considerate, they have been short, very, very, very short.

*http://www.ssrn.com/en/

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

"Does the good professor really disagree that “All persons born...” in 1865 and from generation to generation,...."

>> 1865 should read 1868.

Correction to Question 8:

"Does the good professor think and intend to imply that, in 1865, “...or naturalized in the United States...are citizens...,” which, again, in 1865, thirty-three years before the erroneous 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court “opinion”, ...."

>> 1865 should read 1868.

Thanks, Mario. for allowing the correction.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

PS.

Added to question #5: [, for POTUS eligibility purposes].

Question 5:

Does the good professor really agree with the reinterpretation by the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment language, that “All persons born...” ALSO meant [, for POTUS eligibility purposes,] born on U.S. soil to ONLY one OR zero U.S. citizen parents?

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

A natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797); Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). The two necessary and sufficient conditions for the status is (1) birth in the country (2) to two citizen parents.

Assuming that someone born in America Samoa was born to two U.S. citizen parents, the final question would be is that person born in the country known as the United States. The fundamental purpose of requiring that one be a natural born citizen is to assure the best that the person has undivided love of, allegiance to, and subject to country from the moment of birth. The purpose is not only subject to jurisdiction which is nothing more than the power and authority that a government entity has over a person. The question then becomes whether we should accept a person born in America Samoa to U.S. citizen parents has having been born in the country. My question assumes that the two U.S. citizen parents were not in America Samoa for purposes of serving the national defense of the United States, which was the John McCain case which makes him a natural born citizen. Is America Samoa considered part of the country of the United States? While I have not researched this question in depth, the answer is probably not. I would like to see what argument someone could make that America Samoa is part of the country known as the United States of America. I am open to such an argument.

Adoptions are another interesting case, and may actually apply to The Obama, and would explain at least a portion of all the secrecy. Adoption gets you new birth papers, so that should your NBC status be questioned as regards to running for president, you could present all the correct credentials, and yet …

This this one of your best posts. Obviously, the Obots and sympathizers to the current group of Republican foreigner candidates won't acknowledge any real historical facts. Beyond attempts to rationalize otherwise (natural born subject, 14th amendment, etc.), are there any actual factual references the speak to natural born citizen other than Vattel?

In reply to Kanbum, In general terms , Natural Born Citizen is defined by John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 6: ‘Of Paternal Power’ §. 59, with which the Founders were quite familiar. Further, I would argue that the definition was codified to a bare minimum standard by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution where it transferred from Paternal Power (with Coverture application) to a necessity of both parents and a State of the United States soil birth. Effectually, Natural Born Citizenship was codified in the Constitution IF, and that is the contention that will be debated here, IF we accept the author of that Amendment's original intent and concessions made in the debates about it. Earlier I quoted the Senators conceding 100% allegiance to the United States and NO OTHER NATIONALITY at birth, as being the meaning agreed to in the United States Senate. Now let us look to what Rep. Bingham who authored the Amendment said.

John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, The Congressional Globe (containing the debates and proceedings of) the 2nd Session of the 37th Congress in 1862, on page 1639, states:http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gif

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”

Then in 1866, Representative Bingham also stated on the House floor:“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents NOT owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” So states Representative Bingham in the Congressional Globe (containing the debates and proceedings of) the 1st Session of the 39th Congress, March 9, 1866

In effect, you MUST have a United States Citizen Father AND a United States Citizen Mother AND a United States Soil Birth AND have no other nationality than that of the United States. No if, ands, buts, it is codified IN THE CONSTITUTION if we follow the intent of that Amendment's author. You may NOT take away any one of these 4 requirements. (Part 1)

Two other non-Vattel references such as from US Supreme Court Justice Story and The New Englander and Yale Law Review should also be looked at.

In 1833, in Justice Joseph Story's “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” § 1473, we find this concurring jurisprudential insight from an intelligent and articulate US Supreme Court justice, who wrote:“It is indispensible too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States… to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties.…But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.”http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/story/sto-336.htm

"The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.”The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845)

For the Federal Government acting on behalf of the United States in failing to uphold the Natural Born Citizen clause, they have violated the CONTRACT they hold to the States and to WE THE PEOPLE in adhering to the contract they took an oath to uphold and affirm.

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 1 Wheat. 304 (1816)Justice Johnson @ 373 declares:"To me, the Constitution appears, in every line of it, to be a contract which, in legal language, may be denominated tripartite. The parties are the people, the States, and the United States."

Those of us who are Constitutionalists are part of the WE THE PEOPLE pointing out the those representing the Federal Government or "The United States" in the TRIPARTITE CONTRACT have violated living up to their part of the Contract, and for exposing that, in regard to the Natural Born Citizen clause and all laws being therefore fruit of the poisonous tree by that violation by such an installed individual, they prevent us from declaring we have Article III standing to sue, and call us names like "birthers" as if their puerile projections took away from the facts by appealing to a common denominator of demanding idiot authority acceptance over reason.

I noticed that I must have cut the full quote I only referenced above in referring to Senators Howard and Trumbull on the 14th Amendment debates. I therefore share the context as the U.S. Senate understood the significance of what "subject to the jurisdiction" was in its Originalist sense when it was passed and what it was ever after supposed to maintain (according to their intent).

The Congressional Globe, 1st session, May 30, 1866The debate on the first section of the 14th Amendmenthttp://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor38

Senator Jacob Howard (R-Michigan) authored a "subject to the jurisdiction" clause into the 14th Amendment. Upon his introduction, the ff. are his remarks.

Part 4 (column 2), page 2890Mr. Howard: The first amendment is to section one, declaring "that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside...This is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Senator Trumbull of Illinois, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee concurred:Part 4 (columns 1-2), page 2893Mr. Trumbull: The provision is, "that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." That means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof"... What do we mean by "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"? Not owing alliance to anybody else. That is what it means.

...It cannot be said of any...who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

...It is only those persons who completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens."

Part 4 (columns 2-3), page 2895Mr. Howard: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word "jurisdiction" as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States...that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."

Justin cites Tuana v. U.S. Do I understand the intent of Justin correctly is to bring it to our attention that this 3 judge panel District of Columbia Circuit Court Case decided this year effectually tells us that it is not just the U.S. territory of Samoa, but also Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia, that would by necessity be incapable of claiming birth citizenship to the United States under the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause referred to, and thereby NOT be United States Natural Born Citizen capable, even though born to United States national parents on United states Territorial soil at the time of their birth?

Over at Western Free Press, Bryan Gene Olson said to me in reference to the Ramsay-Smith Congressional debate: "Is that as close to a retraction and apology as we are going to get from you, Mr. Apuzzo? You were pretending it was about the definition of an Article II 'natural born Citizen'."" http://fyre.it/jgBz9p.4

Mr. Olson has and continues to do poorly. I never said that the Ramsay-Smith debate was about the definition of a natural born citizen. That debate was about whether William Smith was eligible under the Constitution to be elected a U.S. Representative. Apart from the 25-years minimum age and habitancy requirements, a U.S. Representative only has to be a citizen of the United States for a minimum of 7 years. See Article I, Section 2, Clause 2. Hence, David Ramsay argued that because William Smith played it safe by staying in Europe rather than returning to America and joining the American Revolution, he was not a citizen for at least 7 years. In published newspaper articles, Smith cited and quoted Emer de Vattel, not William Blackstone, to support his position that he was a citizen of the United States for the requisite 7-year time period.

On the other hand, I do maintain that in his 1789 dissertation on citizenship, Ramsay not only defined who the original citizens were, stating that as between a citizen and a subject, "[t]he difference is immense," but he also defined a natural born citizen. Ramsay explained:

4th. None can claim citizenship as a birth-right, but such as have been born since the declaration of independence, for obvious reasons: no man can be born a citizen of a state or government, which did not exist at the time of this birth. Citizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken a part in the last revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens. Those who died before the revolution, could leave no political character to their children, but of subjects, which they themselves possessed. If they had lived, no one could be certain whether they would have adhered to the king or congress. Their children, therefore, may claim by inheritance the rights of “British subjects,” but not of “American citizens.”

Id. at 6 (emphasis in the original).

He then drew this conclusion:

The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of "July," 1776. . . . From the premises already established, it may be farther inferred, that citizenship, from inheritance, belong to none but the children of those "Americans," who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring.

Id. at 6-7 (emphasis in the original).

Ramsay explained in 1789 that birthright citizenship was a natural right that a child inherited from his or her parents at the time of birth. He said that only a child born to citizen parents who gave birth to the child in the country of which they were citizens could inherit the natural right of birthright citizenship. The Framers in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 called a child who inherited the natural right to birthright citizenship a natural born citizen. What this means is that a child born to alien parents could not be a natural born citizen, for he or she could not inherit that natural right from parents who were not citizens. Indeed, a child could not inherit at birth from his or her parents a right they did not possess.

Ramsay also explained that any child born out of the United States needed to be "adopted" as a citizen or naturalized by positive law in order to be a citizen of the United States. He said: "Persons born in any country may have acquired citizenship by adoption, or naturalization, agreeably to law. The citizenship of such must be dated from the time of their adoption." Id. at 6. Hence, children born in the United States to alien parents, not being birthright citizens by way of natural right, also needed to be adopted or naturalized in order to be citizens of the United States.

So, Ramsay defined the original citizens, the natural born citizens, and the naturalized citizens.

Congress did not agree with Ramsay that Smith was not a citizen for at least 7 years and therefore voted that Smith was eligible to be a U.S. Representative. Congress never said that it did not agree with Ramsay's definitions of an original citizen, a natural born citizen, and a naturalized citizen. In fact, Congress fully agreed with his definitions as is evidenced from all the laws that it has passed in the citizenship area. In its Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, only children born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents did not need to be naturalized at birth or after birth and Congress expressed in the text of its Acts that a child born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents was a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth. It did not state that that child was a “natural born citizen.”

In the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress expressly stated that children born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which jurisdiction clause was needed only for those children born in the United States to parents who were not U.S. citizens, were “citizens of the United States,” which is the same language Congress used to describe persons that it naturalized through its naturalization Acts. Congress did not state that those children were natural born citizens.

Minor v. Happerett (1875) defined a natural born citizen as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens. This is consistent with how Ramsay defined one.

Finally, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment, held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, such qualifying child’s (one born in the United States to alien parents who were domiciled and permanently residing in the United States and who were neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders) U.S. citizenship dates no differently from that of a child born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents, i.e., from the moment of birth or what Congress calls “at birth.” Understanding the critical constitutional difference between a natural born citizen and a citizen of the United States from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment (only a natural born citizen can be President or Vice-President), Wong Kim Ark did not hold that Wong was a natural born citizen. Rather, it held that Wong was a citizen of the United States from the moment of birth, a conclusion that is consistent with David Ramsay’s teachings.

Jon said at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/benjamin-franklin-in-1775-thanks.html :

Sometimes miscited is Emmerich de Vattel, in his work Les Droit des Gens (Law of Nations), taking out of context the words from Book I:

§ 212. ... The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

But he was writing of the rule of jus sanguinis that was municipal law (not the law of nations) for countries on the European Continent. A little further down, he explains:

§ 214. ... there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

The rule of jus soli goes back to at least 508 BC in Athens, when it was used to establish citizenship in districts called demes. The Romans mainly used jus sanguinis to organize the empire into national groups each with its own legal system (although they had to introduce the office of praetor peregrinus to adjudicate disputes between members of different groups). However, the Edict of Caracalla in 212 AD made jus soli the rule for the entire Empire. The rule was carried to France and England under Roman domination, and the Normans adopted it and spread it to Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall.

However, jus sanguinis prevailed in many Eastern and Central European countries at the time Vattel wrote, and spread to other countries on the European continent. It displaced jus soli in Britain in 1983 and in France in 1993, mainly in response to immigration of persons of different ethnicity.August 9, 2015 at 2:02 PM

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. responded:

Jon,

The problem that I have with your argument is that the historical and legal record demonstrates that while the states may have adopted the English common law jus soli rule when they selectively adopted the English common law after July 4, 1776, the national government never did. On the contrary, among other evidence, the early naturalization Acts of Congress (1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855) and cases of the United States Supreme Court (see, for example, Minor v. Happersett (1875)), show that the national government adopted the jus sanguinis rule of citizenship of the law of nations and not the jus soli one of the English common law. The jus sanguinis rule was consistent with the Enlightenment teachings of John Locke, who espoused that government was based on consent of the governed and the right to expatriation. It was also consistent with the teachings of Emer de Vattel, the Founders and Framers favorite publicist on the law of nations. Finally, it was also consistent with the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, which also advocated Locke's consent-based theories of government and citizenship. The Framers were familiar with what Vattel wrote in Section 214 regarding the jus soli rule of England and they rejected it for national citizenship and replaced it with the jus sanguinis rule put forth by Vattel in Section 212.

I read all of the comments over at Western Free Press about the Ramsay-Smith Congressional debate ( http://fyre.it/jgBz9p.4 ) and your comments here that you posted on August 8, 2015 at 12:18 PM.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

From Western Free Press in your comment to 4zoltan:MarioApuzzo

@4zoltan @MarioApuzzo

>> Are we playing a new version of Charades?

>> I know that you are referring to William Rawle which raises the same question you asked me: >> What authorities does Rawle cite to back-up his opinion? >> None.

>> More importantly, William Rawle did not correctly understand U.S. citizenship development during the Founding and thereafter. He conflated an original native state citizen under the Declaration of Independence and state law, who was confirmed as a citizen of the United States upon the ratification of the Constitution, with an Article II natural born citizen, who was (1) a descendant of the original or naturalized citizens of the United States and (2) born in the country.

>> Furthermore, Rawle disagreed with John Locke’s theories on citizenship which the historical and legal record shows our nation adopted during the revolutionary period and thereafter.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

After 4zoltan did not respond you wrote:

MarioApuzzoMarioApuzzo

@4zoltan @MarioApuzzo

>> So you concede that Willliam Rawle did not cite any authority to back him up.

4zoltan responded with this:

4zoltan4zoltan

@MarioApuzzo @4zoltan

>> Just as you concede that Dr. Ramsay cited no authorities to back him up.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario, it seems that Rawle was prescient and anticipated the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment as reinterpreted by the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court's erroneous holding that a child born on U.S. soil to alien parents, who had not naturalized before their child was born on U.S. soil, was a U.S. citizen, while Ramsay did not use his crystal ball or his tea leaves to look into the future, but he simply looked backward to the original genesis original intent of founder and ratifier John Jay when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington.

So, it seems that Ramsay was being true to the original intent of the July 4, 1776 "naturalization" of the American patriots while Rawle was not. However, Rawle could have meant "citizen" but wrote "natural born citizen" instead.

Who knows?

It seems to me that neither Ramsay nor Rawle adduced explicit sources, while only Ramsay did adduce John Jay and his commonsense implicit original intent meaning of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents.

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( http://originalbirtherdocument24.blogspot.com/ )

>> "The talking heads, in their ignorance have equated ‘citizen’ with ‘natural born citizen’ and insisted that ‘natural born citizen’ has never been defined—which is not true.

>> "The U.S. Supreme Court in 1874 defined “Natural Born Citizen” in Minor v. Happersett as children born of two parents who are United States citizens. Without regard to the location of the child’s birth the court unanimously declared:

>> " 'The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.'

>> "The findings of the Supreme Court in 1874 was unanimous; there was no dissention or opposition among the Justices as to the findings, and the definition has not changed.

>> "The issue and question is not where Obama was born, rather “Were both of his parents U.S. citizens when he was born?” "

1795Immigration and Naturalization ActUnited States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” (January 29, 1795).; Indiana University, http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html, 26 October 2011

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I did a quick goggle search and found only BirtherReport.com's August 12, 2015 post about Prof. Skidmore's 2011 Hawaii Reporter guest article.

Oh well, no wonder that, using my wording and not Prof. Skidmore's, John Jay's original genesis original intent for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington does not get traction in the schools of higher learning.

Only one article and that's it?

It must be repeated incessantly: The original genesis original intent meaning of "born" in "natural born Citizen" can ONLY mean

_ONLY singular U.S. citizenship _ONLY by birth on U.S. soil _ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents _ONLY married to each other _BEFORE the child is born

for the child to qualify to be "...eligible to the Office of President."

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( http://originalbirtherdocument24.blogspot.com/ )

It must be repeated incessantly: The original genesis original intent meaning of "born" in "natural born Citizen" can ONLY mean

_ONLY singular U.S. citizenship

That's not true. In Perkins v. Elg, 307 US 325 - Supreme Court 1939, SCOTUS opined native born citizen Marie Elg had "... not lost her citizenship in the United States and is entitled to all the rights and privileges of that citizenship" after electing to resume the privileges and obligations of a U.S. citizen and taking up permanent residence in the U.S. during her majority.

An election to resume privileges and obligations of a U.S. citizen indicates those privileges and obligations of a U.S. citizen had been forfeited while she lived in a foreign nation during her minority. SCOTUS opined the US - Sweden Treaty, controlling US law at the time, did not address the right of election to return in the case of a U.S. citizen removed during his/her minority and was not diminished by the treaty. Pursuant to treaty, Elg was a Swedish citizen at the time she exercised her right of election to resume the privileges and obligations of a U.S. citizen and return to the U.S. At the time of her reaching her age of majority, Elg was an alien who had maintained her right of election to return through her status as a person born in the U.S.

As a prelude to its conclusion, SCOTUS quoted the Acting Secretary of State Wharton, 1890, on the matter of a native born U.S. citizen who had been admitted to Danish citizenship during his minority, and who had not yet come of age, "when a citizen of the United States voluntarily becomes naturalized or renaturalized in a foreign country, he is to be regarded as having lost his rights as an American citizen," but qualified his remarks with, "As Mr. Andersen has not yet attained his majority, the Department is not prepared to admit that proceedings taken on his behalf in Denmark during his minority would deprive him of his right, upon reaching the age of twenty-one years, to elect to become an American citizen by immediately returning to this country to resume his allegiance here." See Moore, Int. Law Dig., p. 715.

After properly recognizing Elg had exercised her right of election to return to the U.S., the Secretary of State intervened and ordered a US passport to be issued to Elg. SCOTUS supported the intervention of the Secretary of State and opined Elg had not lost her right of election to return. After living in the U.S. for several years, Elg was refused a U.S. passport and notified she was subject to deportation as an alien living in the U.S. without authorization. SCOTUS concluded Elg had not lost her U.S. citizenship after exercising her right of election to return and establishing herself as a resident of the U.S.

It must be repeated incessantly: The original genesis original intent meaning of "born" in "natural born Citizen" can ONLY mean

_ONLY singular U.S. citizenship

That's not true.

In Perkins v. Elg, 307 US 325 - Supreme Court 1939, SCOTUS opined native born citizen Marie Elg had "... not lost her citizenship in the United States and is entitled to all the rights and privileges of that citizenship" after electing to resume the privileges and obligations of a U.S. citizen and taking up permanent residence in the U.S. during her majority. ....

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Sven, since my previous comment on August 13, 2015 at 10:59 AM was about John Jay and his 1787 opinion about eligibility to be POTUS, in your 2015 opinion, does the U.S. Supreme Court's 1939 opinion in Perkins v. Elg support or reject John Jay's, in my opinion, 1787 "original genesis original intent" and the ONLY obvious, in my opinion, implicit meaning of "born" in "natural born Citizen" in 1787 as meaning, not explicitly, only implicitly, ONLY singular U.S. citizenship for a person to be “...eligible to the Office of President” and NOT explicitly or implicitly allowing dual U.S./foreign citizenship for a person to be eligible?

The "original genesis original intent" of John Jay in 1787 is my point, not 1875, 1898 or 1939 Court opinions.

Example 1:

Consider the 1875 Minor v. Happersett holding, which, in my opinion, tacitly and implicitly affirms John Jay's "original genesis original intent" of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship and the other “ONLY” points that are repeated below:

>> "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

>> "At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.

>> "These [child “citizens”] were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners....",

Consider the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark holding that a child born on U.S. soil to two alien parents who have not naturalized as U.S. citizens before their child is born, is still a U.S. citizen, with the 2000s tacit implication of being eligible to vote and to be, as is said of Sen. Rubio and Gov. Jindal, and et al., “...eligible to the Office of President”, and this 1898 holding, which is said by 2015 proponents to allow voting privileges and POTUS eligibility, is so regardless of, in my opinion, the original genesis original intent of the opening words of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, which was proposed, debated, accepted and ratified for the benefit of, NOT 1865 Caucasians, male and female, who were ALREADY free and recognized as U.S. citizens, but primarily for the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment FREE Negroes, male and female—AND their children, generation to generation:

>> "All persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof [of the U.S., which excludes children of ambassadors, etc.], are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside....",

Example 3:

The 1939 Perkins v. Elg opinion by the Supreme Court about loss or retention of “citizen” status.

My concluding comment on August 13, 2015 at 10:59 AM was:

>> "Oh well, no wonder that, using my wording and not Prof. Skidmore's, John Jay's original genesis original intent for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington does not get traction in the schools of higher learning.

>> "Only one article and that's it?

>> "It must be repeated incessantly: The original genesis original intent meaning of "born" in "natural born Citizen" can ONLY mean

_ONLY singular U.S. citizenship_ONLY by birth on U.S. soil_ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents_ONLY married to each other_BEFORE the child is born

for the child to qualify to be "...eligible to the Office of President."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Sven, do you agree with the “ONLY” points?

Since I'm not a constitutional scholar, and I have not represented a client in any court, I am sticking with John Jay's commonsense tacit implications of "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his longtime friend General George Washington as having ONLY one original genesis original intent meaning, tacit and implicit. For that simple reason I leave it to scholars and lawyers to debate the nuances of explicit and implicit Court opinions whether or not they, scholars and lawyers, adduce John Jay's 1787 opinion and his prescient words that were intend for his posterity, generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS.

That said, Perkins v. Elg and loss or retention of privileges and obligations of a U.S. citizen is pertinent, is seems to me, to a different discussion.

PS. Sven, I'm curious. Are you a constitutional scholar and or an experienced lawyer?

This is from your blogger profile:

Profile Not Available

The Blogger Profile you requested cannot be displayed. Many Blogger users have not yet elected to publicly share their Profile.

If you're a Blogger user, we encourage you to enable access to your Profile.

Just curious.

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( OribinalBirtherDocument24.blogspot.com )

Do you have any evidence that Marie Elg had dual citizenship at the time of her birth in the United States to naturalized U.S. citizen parents as opposed to also gaining the citizenship of her parents when they returned with her to their home country of Sweden during her years of minority?

Marie Elg administratively denaturalized as a US citizen and naturalized as a Swedish citizen pursuant to U.S. - Swedish treaty. See syllabus item 3, Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939). Treaties made under the authority of the US have the full effect of U.S. law. See Article VI. Elg was not a dual citizen at birth pursuant to US - Swedish treaty.

Elg was issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality during her minority by the US SoS after residing in Sweden for 5 or more years to comply with US - Sweden treaty. At or near her transition to the age of majority, The US SoS recognized Elg's right of election to return to the US and resume her US citizenship status after Elg declared her intent and stated an oath of allegiance to the US. SCOTUS opined Elg did not forfeit her right of election to return even though Elg had lost her US citizenship.

Elg was a native born, natural born US citizen at birth and not a US citizen after living in Sweden for 5 years during her minority. She recaptured her US citizenship after exercising her right of election to return. The Court of Appeals ruled Elg to be a natural born citizen after exercising her right of election to return. SCOTUS affirmed Elg was a natural born citizen. It's reasonable to conclude SCOTUS did not opine Elg was not a natural born citizen while she was not a US citizen. Natural born citizenship status is fluid.

I of IIIHere is a typical Obot natural born citizen argument, found at https://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2015/08/the-natural-born-citizen-debate/ . Here is my response that I left there:

The problem with you argument is that you say that neither the Constitution, nor federal statute, nor some other federal law defines a natural born citizen. On the contrary, the clause is defined by national constitutional law. The definition of the clause was confirmed by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) where the Court held:

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875).

Wong Kim Ark (1898) is in accord with that definition. It also said:

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898).

So, as we can see, our U.S. Supreme Court has told us that the Framers’ definition of a natural born citizen may be found in the common law the nomenclature with which they were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. Under that common law, a natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. If one meets these birth circumstances and facts, one is not born subject to any foreign power.

You second problem is that you want to arrive at a definition of a natural born citizen through bootstrapping. One does not get to be a natural born citizen by providing a limited definition of the term "naturalization," saying that one is not a naturalized citizen, and then concluding that therefore one is a natural born citizen. Rather, the correct approach is to look to the Constitution and satisfy the definition of a natural born citizen which existed under the common law to which the Framers looked to define the clause. Minor. Under our Constitution, there are only citizens and natural born citizens. Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, only a “natural born Citizen,” or a “Citizen of the United States” as of the time of the adoption of the Constitution, is eligible to be President. This means that for those born after its adoption, only natural born citizens are so eligible. This text and structure tell us that there is a critical constitutional distinction between a citizen and a natural born citizen. This text and structure also tell us that a natural born citizen has a more stringent allegiance requirement than does a citizen of the United States. Again, that allegiance requirement is that one is born not subject to any foreign power.

So, in order to be President today, the first constitutional question is whether the person is a natural born citizen, not whether the person is a citizen of the United States. The natural born citizen status is satisfied by complying with the common law definition of a natural born citizen as confirmed by Minor and Wong Kim Ark. Given this constitutional eligibility requirement, the Framers commanded that future Presidents and Commanders in Chief be born not subject to any foreign power.

If one is not a natural born citizen, one can still be a citizen. That is done by satisfying any law that applies to give one plain citizenship status. If one is a citizen, but not a natural born citizen, then one is a citizen by some law which means by naturalization, either at birth or after birth. One needs that naturalization because, not being born a natural born citizen, one was born subject to a foreign power. The laws that are available to make one a citizen who is not a natural born citizen are the Fourteenth Amendment, naturalization Acts of Congress, and treaties. Depending on one's birth circumstances and satisfaction of the requirements in these laws, one can be either a citizen of the United States "at birth," after birth, or not at all.

Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal do not satisfy the one and only one definition of the clause that existed at common law. Cruz was born in Canada presumably to a U.S. citizen mother and Cuban father. He was born not only in allegiance to and a citizen of the United States, but also Canada and Cuba. Both Rubio and Jindal were born in the United States, but to non-U.S. citizen fathers and mothers. They were born not only in allegiance to and a citizen of the United States, but also India (at the time of his birth, his parents were Indian citizens). Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal are not and cannot be natural born citizens because they were not born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. They were all born subject to a foreign power. Cruz, being born out of the United States, is a citizen, but only under a naturalization Act of Congress, assuming he was born to a U.S. citizen mother. Rubio and Jindal are also citizens of the United States "at birth," but, since they were born in the United States, they do not need, like Cruz does, a naturalization Act of Congress. Rather, they are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment and a confirming naturalization Act of Congress. But again, because Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal were not born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of their children's birth, they are not also natural born citizens.

By the way, Barack Obama was presumably born in the United States to a U.S. citizen mother. But he was born to a non-U.S. citizen father. Hence, he, too, was not born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. He was born not only in allegiance to and a citizen of the United States (assuming he was born in the United States), but also Great Britain and Kenya. Therefore, he is not a natural born citizen.

As to Rick Santorum, he is a natural born citizen. He was born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. For a full explanation of his status, see, Mario Apuzzo, “Rick Santorum Is An Article II Natural Born Citizen and Eligible to Be President ,” accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/01/rick-santorum-is-article-ii-natural.html .

Natural born citizenship status is not held in perpetuity. Marie Elg is an excellent example of a native born US citizen who renounced and relinquished her US citizenship pursuant to treaty and then recaptured her US citizenship and natural born citizenship status during her adulthood. SCOTUS opined Elg properly exercised her right of election to return to the US even though her US citizenship had been forfeited.

Constitutional scholars and lawyers are the last individuals who should have the final word meaning of the term natural born citizen. Pursuant to Art. VI, all federal and state judges, all federal and state legislators, and all federal and state executive officers are sworn to support the Constitution. Lawyers are sworn to support the Constitution, as well. Each of these individuals has a vested interest in the maintenance of the Constitution.

The People are sovereign and do not swear an oath to support the Constitution. Prior to the Declaration of Independence, the King was sovereign. As an act of defiance, the Founders declared the People to be sovereign. Publius explained in Federalist No. 78, the People may alter or abolish the Constitution in times of unhappiness. The People abolish the US Constitution through the election of a President in violation of Article II. It's unconscionable to think the servants of the People can thwart the will of the sovereign by defining the term natural born citizen.

SCOTUS has repeatedly held Congress is not authorized to enlarge or abridge the rights of a US citizen with respect to status. See Schneider v. Rusk, 1964. Defining the term natural born citizen would enlarge the rights of some citizens while abridging the rights of other citizens. It is important to remember that the People are sovereign and only answer to God. The servants of the People cannot interfere the People's right terminate the Constitution in times of unhappiness through a violation of Article II. The People are omnipotent. The servants do not have any recourse when the People violate the Constitution to terminate it.

So, as we can see, our U.S. Supreme Court has told us that the Framers’ definition of a natural born citizen may be found in the common law the nomenclature with which they were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. Under that common law, a natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. If one meets these birth circumstances and facts, one is not born subject to any foreign power.

The Judicial Branch is not constitutionally authorized to extend its power beyond the reach of the Legislative Branch. See Federalist No. 80; Cohens v. Virginia, 1821. SCOTUS has opined the Congress is not constitutionally authorized to enlarge or abridge the rights of a US citizen with respect to status. See Schneider v. Rusk, 1964. If SCOTUS were authorized to proffer a definition of the term natural born citizen through an examination of the common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, then the definition would be beyond the reach of the Congress to amend or clarify the definition through a Congressional Act. The power of the Judiciary is co-extensive with the power of the Legislative Branch. SCOTUS cannot define the term natural born citizen through an opinion on the common law and then opine Congress is powerless to enlarge or abridge the rights of US citizen with respect to status.

The Framers had no intention of authorizing any branch of the US federal government to define the term natural born citizen. The Framers structured the Constitution to recognize the People as the sovereign with the opportunity for the sovereign to void the Constitution in times of unhappiness at the ballot box. If the will of the majority is to install an ineligible President in violation of Article II, then the consequence is a collapse of the US federal government. The sovereign answers to God and cannot be held accountable by the US federal government for a violation of the Constitution. The Framers did not authorize the US federal government to prevent a foreign power from overthrowing the US federal government by disabling the sovereign from installing an ineligible President. The Framers intended the Constitution to be voided if the sovereign installed an ineligible President. The ineligible President with foreign allegiance would inherit a poison pill and not a constitutional republic.

>> "Defining the term natural born citizen would enlarge the rights of some citizens while abridging the rights of other citizens. It is important to remember that the People are sovereign and only answer to God."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Yes, it's true that we must "...remember that the People are sovereign...."

That being true, the people, by "defining the term natural born citizen," the people in 2015 America can "abridge the rights of other citizens" just as the 1787 framers of Article II section 1 clause 5 did regarding being eligible to be president when they adopted the prescient suggestion of John Jay in his note to George Washington where he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen," and the framers used this language: "No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of President...."

The word "except" abridges "the rights of other citizens." Right?

So, to ask it again as I did on August 16, 2015 at 3:23 PM:

Sven, do you agree with the “ONLY” points below as related to the "BEFORE" point?

"It must be repeated incessantly: The original genesis original intent meaning of "born" in "natural born Citizen" can ONLY mean

_ONLY singular U.S. citizenship_ONLY by birth on U.S. soil_ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents_ONLY married to each other_BEFORE the child is born

for the child to qualify to be "...eligible to the Office of President."

Others (e.g., Slartibartfast, aka Kevin, aka PhD Mathematician, aka denier that "nbC" IS a proper subset of "citizen" and Dr. Conspiracy, aka Kevin, aka Masters Mathematician, aka affirmer that "nbC" IS a proper subset of "citizen") to whom I have posed similar questions have never responded with a rebuttal that refutes the commonsense assertion that John Jay's "original genesis original intent" for underling the word "born" had ONLY one meaning: ONLY birth to two U.S. citizen parents who were BOTH U.S. citizens BEFORE their child is born and NOT the 2000s theory, aka the 2000s myth, of birth to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent.

So, Sven, do you agree with the “ONLY” points as related to the "BEFORE" point as related to 1787 John Jay and not to 1939 Perkins v. Elg?

Do you agree or disagree with Mario's question and assertion on August 16, 2015 at 5:49 PM :

>> "Sven,

“Do you have any evidence that Marie Elg had dual citizenship at the time of her birth in the United States to naturalized U.S. citizen parents

>> as opposed to also gaining the citizenship of her parents when they returned with her to their home country of Sweden during her years of minority?"

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( OriginalBirtherDocument24.blogspot.com )

Although others like Cruz and Paul have tried but have not been able to get traction about the U.S. border and illegal immigration, since Donald Trump released his mmigration reform proposal ( https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions ) a few days ago, there have been a few current birthright citizenship articles by various prominent people: Daniel Horowitz, Rich Lowry, Roger Clegg and Andrew McCarthy.

Little by little, we're getting to Article II. It just seems to me that we, constitutional scholars and We the People "normal" people, are simply working backward from the 2000s to 1898 (Wong Kim Ark) to 1875 (Minor) to 1873 (Slaughterhouse Cases) 1795 (INA) to September 17, 1787 (adoption) and finally to July 25, 1787 (note) when John Jay authored and underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington with Jay's ONLY possible original genesis original intent meaning for "born": ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen parents ONLY married to each other BEFORE their child is born.

The term natural born citizen is a term of art which has nothing to do with place of birth and everything to do with obligations imposed upon a person by a country other than the United States that the United States considers viable.

The Framers excepted themselves from the natural born citizenship required in Art. II because they considered England's continued subjugation of the US citizenship to be legally viable. For example, Congressman Cutting said, "In the reign of Victoria, in the year 1844, the English Parliament provided that the children of English mothers, though married to foreigners, should have the rights and privileges of English subjects, though born out of allegiance; " Cong.Globe, 33d Cong., 1st Sess. 170, 1854.

To illustrate the policy of the US federal government, Congressman Cutting remarked on the Act of 1802, "... the children of a man (U.S. citizen) who happened to be in the world on the 14th of April, 1802, born abroad, are American citizens, while the children of persons born on the 15th of April, 1802, are aliens to the country.' Cong.Globe, 33d Cong., 1st Sess. 170 (1854).

In 1855 Congress responded to the situation by enacting the predecessor (10 Stat. 604) of R.S. § 1993:

"All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."

R.S. § 1993 was repealed in 1934, but left open the possibility a foreign born person who's father was a citizen at the time of birth and a former resident of the US is a natural born citizen.

In commenting upon the post-1795 naturalization Acts of Congress, you used the clause "natural born citizen" as though that clause were contained in the Acts' text. Please explain where you find in the Acts' text the clause "natural born citizen?"

Now you are off to something else. I was referring to the post-1795 Acts of Congress, not that of 1790, given that you had talked about those laws and argued as if those laws used the clause "natural born citizen," which I see you concede they did not.

As to the 1790 Act using the clause "natural born citizen," that does not mean that those children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents were true "natural born citizens." The Act only said that they "shall be considered as natural born citizens." This is no different from many English naturalization acts and later early naturalization acts of some of the states which took persons who had immigrated to the colonies and states and had been there for only several years and said they were naturalized to be "natural born subjects," and gave to them all the privileges, immunities, and rights of a natural born subject. Surely, you would not view those persons to be true natural born subjects or later natural born citizens under the U.S. Constitution, would you?

Finally, the Third Congress, with the leadership of then-Representative James Madison, and with the approval of President George Washington, through the Naturalization Act of 1795, repealed the Act of 1790, and changed the "shall be considered as natural born citizens" language to "shall be considered as citizens of the United States." This surgical amendment and treatment of the status of these children, who were born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents, shows that the Founders and Framers did not view them to be natural born citizens. Rather, they saw them only as "citizens of the United States," naturalized at birth through the jus sanguinis of being being born to U.S. citizen parents.

The Fourteenth Amendment is the homework for the media this week, and they'll get to Article II next week, or maybe next month, or maybe next year, just before the primary election when Ann Coulter writes another article about how Trump, or Fiorina, or Walker, or Huckabee challenged the Article II eligibility of Cruze, Rubio and Jindal.

Ann Coulter has an excellent 14th Amendment birthright citizenship article posted on her site which she titled "FOX NEWS ANCHORED IN STUPIDITY ON 14TH AMENDMENT"( http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-08-19.html#read_more ), but comments are not possible there.

She also posted it on FrontPageMag where comments are possible, and it was retitled, "Trump vs. Birthright Citizenship - The true history and meaning of the 14th Amendment."( http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259855/trump-vs-birthright-citizenship-ann-coulter ).

It would be helpful for you if you actually read the language of the Naturalization Act of 1795. It clearly states that the Naturalization Act of 1790 is repealed. Furthermore, the 1795 Act clearly and without any doubt says "shall be considered as citizens of the United States," when the 1790 Act had said "shall be considered as natural born citizens." Are you telling us that Congress, with the leadership of then-Representative James Madison and with the approval of President George Washington, when it expressly and clearly repealed the 1790 Act and changed the pertinent language as indicated ("shall be considered as natural born citizens" to "shall be considered as citizens of the United States)) engaged in an exercise of no meaning and therefore changed nothing? Are you telling us that Congress and President Washington did not know that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, for those born after the adoption of the Constitution, proclaimed that being a "citizen of the United States" was no longer sufficient to be eligible for the Office of President, for only a "natural born citizen" would do. With Article II so providing, are you saying that Congress and President Washington repealed the 1790 Act and replaced it with the 1795 one, not realizing the ramifications of what they were doing given the express and clear language of Article II?

On the issue of the meaning of a natural born citizen, I am not into some new version of Charades. So, I will be most appreciative of your answers to the questions that I have asked you. Furthermore, get some courage and state for us what your definition of a natural born citizen is.

Presidential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, said today, August 21, 2015, in Des Moines, Iowa, regarding whether he is a natural born citizen:

“I am a United States citizen because my mother was a United States citizen, born in Wilmington, Delaware. And it has been the law since the beginning of the country that the children of American citizens born here or abroad are American citizens by birth,” Cruz said.” http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/08/cruz-shrugs-off-complaints-about-anchor-baby-epithet-addresses-birthright-citizenship.html/

Notice that first, Cruz said he is a “United States citizen.” Then he said that he is a “citizen[] by birth.” He never said he was a natural born citizen. He did not say that because he knows that he is not a natural born citizen.

First, Cruz did not say that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requires that those born after the adoption of the Constitution (like him), have to be not only citizens of the United States, but “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be elected President.

Second, Cruz did not say that the only reason he is a citizen by birth is because a naturalization Act of Congress made him so and that if it were not for that Act, he would be an alien.

Third, he does not tell us that the naturalization Act of Congress that made him a citizen at birth provides that he is a “citizen of the United States;” it does not say that he is a natural born citizen.

Fourth, even being a citizen by birth does not mean he is a natural born citizen. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) held that Wong, born in the United States to alien parents, was a citizen of the United States from the moment of birth. Yet, it distinguished his status from that of an Article II natural born citizen. What this means is that simply being a citizen of the United States from the moment of birth, or at birth, or by birth, under the Fourteenth Amendment or a naturalization Act of Congress, does not mean one is a natural born citizen. The only way one can be a natural born citizen is, not to satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment or some naturalization Act of Congress, but rather to satisfy the Framers’ definition of the clause which the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) told us existed at common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. The Court explained that that common law defined a natural born citizen as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. It also added that under that common law persons not satisfying that natural born citizen definition were “aliens or foreigners,” who could be naturalized as citizens of the United States under naturalization Acts of Congress.

Cruz was born in Canada to parents who, unlike John McCain’s parents, were not serving the U.S. national defense. He therefore was not born or reputed born in the United States. He was also born to presumably a U.S. citizen mother, and to a non-U.S. citizen father (his father was Cuban). Hence he was also not born to two U.S. citizen parents. Cruz is at best a “citizen of the United States” “at birth” by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress (assuming that he was born to a U.S. citizen mother). But failing both requirements for being a natural born citizen, i.e., born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents, he is not nor can he be a natural born citizen.

Cruz should review Montana v Kennedy, 366 US 308,(1961). A US citizen mother birthed a child in Italy with a Italian father while temporarily residing in Italy. SCOTUS opined Montana was not born a US citizen and must naturalize.

As to your other challenge with respect to a definition of a natural born citizen it is any US citizen not subject to a legally viable claim of jurisdiction by a foreign power. For example, US citizens who have renounced their birthright citizenship and naturalized as a US citizen continue to suffer legally viable claims of jurisdiction by their home country.

In contrast, Marie Elg was a native born person whose US citizenship was extinguished by treaty and then recaptured by right of election to return maintained by a minor until 6 months past her age of majority. Any claims of jurisdiction by Sweden were not considered legally viable.

I posted a similar but shorter comment as this over at HumanEvents.com in Ann Coulter's Fourteenth Amendment article about birthright citizenship for illegal alien anchor babies titled: "Fox News Anchored in Stupidity on 14 the Amendment”( http://humanevents.com/2015/08/19/fox-news-anchored-in-stupidity-on-14th-amendment/ )

At last count a few minutes ago, there are 1,143 comments, most of them mundane. So, since my comment will probably never be read there, other than the one reply, with your OK I would like to post this expanded version here on your blog.

Ann's article is an excellent clarification of, and this is my emphasis, the original intent of the word "born" in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 sentence 1 authored by Jacob Howard, and, by extrapolation, the original genesis original intent of of the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in the 1787 Article II Section 1 Clause 5 that was authored by John Jay in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington.

The Fourteenth Amendment is the homework for the media this week, and they'll get to Article II next week, or maybe next month, or maybe next year, just before the primary election when Ann Coulter writes another article about how Trump, or Fiorina, or Walker, or Huckabee or Bush successfully challenged the Article II POTUS eligibility of Cruz, Rubio and Jindal and others who do not have singular U.S. citizenship.

Mario, although I thought it might have been Trump or Fiorina, it seems that, as recorded in the Dallas News article you mentioned on August 21, 2015 at 7:50 PM, it seems that Gov. Jeb Bush drew “first blood” in New Hampshire, and Sen. Cruz responded:( http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/08/cruz-shrugs-off-complaints-about-anchor-baby-epithet-addresses-birthright-citizenship.html/ )

>> "Cruz also tackled the suggestion Bush made a day earlier in New Hampshire that he and Sen. Marco Rubio had benefited from birthright citizenship. He called Bush "confused."

>> "I am a United States citizen because my mother was a United States citizen, born in Wilmington, Delaware. And it has been the law since the beginning of the country that the children of American citizens born here or abroad are American citizens by birth,” Cruz said.

>> "It seems Gov. Bush has that confused with the very different notion that someone who comes here illegally should not have the law grant automatic citizenship to their children if they are here illegally."

Next year, hopefully next week rather than later, maybe We the People can get around to clarifying John Jay's original genesis original intent meaning for the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his longtime and good friend General George Washington when Washington was presiding over the Constitutional Convention in which the delegates accepted Jay's suggestion that the presidency not devolve on anybody but a "natural born Citizen" and so the "exceptional" language was included into Article II Section 1 Clause 5:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States [only until the last "...or a Citizen" died sometime in the 1800s], at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;...."

If We the People finally get around to discussing the original meaning of "born" in Article II, we will discover that "born" in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment meant the same thing to the 1868 framers as "born" meant to the 1787 framers of Article II.

For POTUS eligibility consider the necessary similarity of the word "born" in 1787 and 1868:

In 1868, "born" meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, NOT dual U.S./foreign citizenship.In 1787, "born" meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, NOT dual U.S./foreign citizenship.

In 1868, "born" meant ONLY on U.S. soil.In 1787, "born" meant ONLY on U.S. soil.

In 1868, "born" meant ONLY to U.S. citizen parents who had been born on U.S. soil and then naturalized a "citizen" by the Fourteenth Amendment.In 1787, "born" meant ONLY to U.S. citizen parents who had become a naturalized "citizen" by the July 4, 1776 declaration of independence from a foreign power.

Consider the comment, quoted next, about the 1875 Minor v. Happersett unanimous decision, which tacitly and implicitly affirms John Jay's 1787 "original genesis original intent" as listed in the “ONLY” points listed below and which also affirms the original genesis original intent of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment:

>> "The Constitution does not, in words [but it does by tacit implication, see below], say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

>> "At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.

>> "These [child “citizens”] were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners...."

"The Constitution does not, in words say...;" but it does "say" by tacit implication, "who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."

My Point:

My point is that "elsewhere" is, as the Minor Court affirmed, in the "common law...nomenclature," but "elsewhere" is also in the explicit language of Article I section 2 Clause 2 and Article 1 Section 3 Clause 3 about "who"(not "what" or "what does citizen mean" but "who") is ia "citizen" and so is eligible to be a U.S. Representative or a U.S. Senator.

Article I Section 2 Clause 2 says that a (tacitly implicit "naturalized") Representative must be at least twenty-five years old and a U.S. citizen for seven years, meaning the LAST seven years, to be eligible to be a U.S. Representative. Twenty-five years old and ONLY seven years a U.S. citizen. Not the first seven years of life, of course, not the middle seven years of life, but the LAST seven years of life, possible from day one of age eighteen to day one of age twenty-five.

A naturalized U.S. Representative is not "...eligible to the Office of President."

Article I Section 3 Clause 3 says that a (tacitly implicit "naturalized") Senator must be at least thirty years old and a U.S. citizen for nine years, meaning the LAST nine years, to be eligible to be a U.S. Senator. Thirty years old and ONLY nine years a U.S. citizen. Not the first nine years of life, of course, not the middle nine years of life, but the LAST nine years of life, possible from day one of age twenty-one to day one of age thirty. That allows for being a U.S. Representative for two years and attaining to the age of thirty and nine years a U.S. citizen, and so eligible to be a U.S. Senator.

A naturalized U.S. Senator is not "...eligible to the Office of President."

The language in Article I for Representatives and Senators implies that, in 1787 America, since the wife took on the citizenship of the husband, both of the parents of the Representatives or Senators were not U.S. citizens, which is why the Representatives and Senators had to naturalize to be U.S. citizens for seven years and nine years respectively and of sufficient age before being eligible to the U.S. Congress.

In 1787 America, the American common law understanding of citizenship and allegiance was simple:

if a person was born on foreign soil to foreign citizens/subjects, the person was an alien who would need to naturalize to be a U.S. citizen Representative or a U.S. citizen Senator.

if a person was born in the U.S. to alien parents before they naturalized as U.S. citizens, the child was identified as an alien who would need to be naturalize, either by the naturalization of the father, which, in 1787 America, bestowed U.S. citizenship on the wife and the children, and then by the child's own choice to naturalize or not upon reaching the age of majority.

The language of Article II Section 1 Clause 5 implies that being a naturalized citizen was not sufficient to be a U.S. President, because the person had to be and exceptional person:

>> "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" [at least until the last "...or a Citizen" died sometime late in the 1800s], to be "...eligible to the Office of President" and "...attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Thirty-five AND Thirty-five:

In other words, the "exceptional" person must be 35 years old AND a U.S. citizen for thirty-five years. Thirty-five years old AND thirty-five years a U.S. citizen.

In 1787 America when Article II was proposed, debated, adopted and sent to the states to be ratified, thirty-five years old AND thirty-five years a U.S. citizen meant, implicitly, that to be eligible to be president, a person necessarily MUST be (1) born on U.S. soil and (2) born to two U.S. citizen parents who are citizens either by birth or by naturalization, NOT one U.S. citizen parent and definitely NOT zero U.S. citizen parents. Not in 1787 America.

Zero U.S. citizen parents is what advocates for birthright citizenship for illegal alien anchor babies are asserting for "born" in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, with the conclusion that a child, born to zero U.S. citizen parents who are illegal aliens in the U.S., is a U.S. citizen because the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court erroneously opined about a child born to legal aliens, and then the birthright citizenship for illegal alien anchor babies advocates attempt to also apply their definition of Fourteenth Amendment birthright citizenship for illegal alien anchor babies back to "born" in "natural born Citizen" in the 1787 Article II, with the erroneous conclusion that they can then, after touching the Article II Section 1 most holy place of atonement, aka Clause 5, they can then fastforward to 2015 America and assert that "born" in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment also means that children born of legal aliens who did not naturalize before their children were born on U.S. soil, such as Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal and et al., are constitutionally eligible to be President.

One U.S. citizen parent is what "natural born Citizen" new meaning "neo-birthers", aka Democratic Party Obamabots (Obots) and Republican Party Cruzbots (Cbots), Rubiobots (Rbots), Jindalbots (Jbots), are also asserting for "born" in Article II and Amendment XIV with their conclusion that Sen. Ted Cruz, for example, who does not have Fourteenth Amendment "birthright citizenship" but has statute citizenship as defined by the current Immigration and Naturalization Service statute, NOT "statute" defined "natural born Citizenship," so Sen. Cruz is constitutionally eligible to be President even though he was born on foreign soil to only one U.S. citizen parent.

So, it must be repeated incessantly until it sinks into the consciousness of We the People that, for POTUS eligibility, John Jay's original genesis original intent meaning of "born" in "natural born Citizen" and in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 can ONLY mean

_ONLY singular U.S. citizenship_ONLY by birth on U.S. soil_ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents_ONLY married to each other_BEFORE the child is born

for the child to qualify to be "...eligible to the Office of President."

If a child is born on U.S. soil (or U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil) to one U.S. citizen parent, father or mother, the child is a Fourteenth Amendment "born" citizen with dual U.S. and foreign citizenship, but not an Article II "natural born Citizen" with singular U.S. citizenship, and so is not "...eligible to the Office of President."

If a child is born on U.S. soil (or U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil) to zero U.S. citizen parents who are legal aliens, the child is, by original genesis, an alien, and the child is, by the original intent of ALL statutes since the 1790 Naturalization Act, which declared that a child born on foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents was "considered" to be a natural born citizen, "considered" because it is a "positive" law word expressing a one-time opinion that was changed by the 1795 Naturalization Act forever opinion that changed "natural born Citizen" to "citizen," a 1795 "forever opinion" that has been adhered to by ALL subsequent acts of Congress, and also adhered to implicitly in 1868 by the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. The 1787 child is an alien, and the 1868 child is an alien; an "alien" before the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court erroneously opined that the alien child has been, since the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment language of "All persons born...are citizens...," automatically what the parents were not, a U.S. citizen with dual U.S. and foreign citizenship. If the child of legal OR illegal aliens is "automatically" a U.S. citizen because of birth touchdown on U.S. soil, then "jurisdiction" is superfluous, "jurisdiction" it is not relevant.

Jurisdiction is NOT superfluous, that is why the advocates for birthright citizenship for illegal alien anchor babies are wrong.

Jurisdiction is NOT superfluous, that is why birth on U.S. soil to legal aliens was not, is not and never will be the original genesis of both Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and Amendment XIV Section 1 first sentence.

Born means ONLY singular U.S. citizenship.

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( OriginalBirtherDocument24.blogspot.com )

Thank you for citing Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961) in reference to Senator Cruz's false claim that he is a natural born citizen. In Montana, petitioner was born in Italy in 1906 to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father. The Court held that because he was not born to a U.S. citizen father, he was not a citizen under the only Act of Congress that applied to his birth circumstances, R.S. Sec. 1993 (required that children born out of the United States be born to U.S. citizen fathers in order to be citizens of the United States). As Montana demonstrates, if Cruz had been born in Canada in 1906 to a U.S. citizen mother and to a non-U.S. citizen father, he would have been an alien and not even a citizen of the United States. But yet he tells us that since he was born in 1971 and Congress has changed the naturalization Acts to allow birth to U.S. citizen mothers and not just U.S. citizen fathers, he is a natural born citizen. But how can a natural born citizen be a natural born citizen in one time period and be an alien in another? The question is pregnant with the answer. The definition of a natural born citizen is immutable and does not change with time, but that of a naturalized citizen does. Hence, we can see that Cruz may be a citizen of the United States by way of a naturalization Act of Congress, but he is not a natural born citizen.

Your question in your comment to Sven on August 23, 2015 at 8:22 AM is short, sweet and superb commonsense!

>> "But how can a natural born citizen be a natural born citizen in one time period and be an alien in another?"

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Ken Klukowski also makes superb commonsense on Breitbart.com about the Fourteenth Amendment and birthright citizenship.

>> From Breitbart.com, "Ken Klukowski is legal editor of Breitbart News and a practicing constitutional attorney, and explains birthright citizenship in Chapter 12 of Resurgent: How Constitutional Conservatism Can Save America."

Included below are the urls to Ken's three articles on Breitbart.com about the Fourteenth Amendment and birthright citizenship.

His first sentence/paragraph of his first article is:

>> "The Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment does not confer citizenship on the children of foreigners, whether legal or illegal."

His question in paragraph 14 in the first article on Breitbart.com (which I opened up here) clarifies his emphatic assertion in the first sentence. His assertion in the first sentence is that the Fourteenth Amendment does NOT confer citizenship on legal or illegal aliens, but, in paragraph 14, if it were to go berserk (my term), the U.S. Congress CAN confer citizenship on the whole world under the authority of Article I.

So, if the Congress were to go berserk, by statute the whole world could be considered to be citizens of the U.S., but, not one “citizen” would, absolutely NOT, be considered to be a "natural born Citizen" and so all of the statute "citizens" would NOT be "...eligible to the Office of President."

Paragraph 14:

>> "So why is a child born on American soil to foreign parents an American citizen by birth?

>> "Because the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause is a floor, not a ceiling.

>> "Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution, Congress has absolute power to make laws for immigration and for granting citizenship to foreigners.

>> "Congress’s current INA is far more generous than the Constitution requires.

>> "Congress could expand it to grant citizenship to every human being on earth, or narrow it to its constitutional minimum."

Cruz and Obama are similarly situated. The Court of Appeals, Perkins v. Elg, 99 F. 2d 408 - Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 1938, footnote 2, "Both England and the United States (Act of 25 Ed. III Stat. 2, passed in 1350, and Act of April 14, 1802, R.S. § 1993, 8 U.S.C.A. § 6) under some circumstances recognized citizenship on the part of children of subjects or citizens born out of the jurisdiction of the respective countries.

The framers exempted US citizens at the adoption of the US Constitution from the Art. II natural born citizenship requirement because England did not relinquish the colonists from subjugation even though the colonists declared their independence and war had been won. The framers considered England's continued subjugation of the People of the united States as offensive to the God given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but legally viable in the international arena.

I just finished reading John Eastman's 2006 piece on Heritage.org and then came here to your blog and saw that Sven had a good comment with an accurate conclusion, Cruz and Obama are ineligible, and I thought I would post a portion of Eastman's piece when I realized that he has a more complete "feudal to consent" reason why they are not eligible.

Eastman adduces Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence, the political theory of the "consent of the governed" vs. the "feudalism of medieval England" and the "natural-born subject" and "allegiance to the king which can never be renounced," and he has a quote from Prof. Edward Erler which starts with "[T]he social contract requires reciprocal consent."

My point is that the "reciprocal consent" of the governed includes rethinking the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision and how it misinterpreted the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, and so the Fourteenth Amendment has been erroneously misapplied since 1982, when Justice William Brennan, as Ken Klukowski wrote in his second Breitbart.com article that I mentioned earlier: >> http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/20/liberal-and-establishment-arguments-for-birthright-citizenship-fail/

>> "... the 1982 case Plyler v. Doe, where the notoriously liberal Justice William Brennan— writing for the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision—slipped in an obscure footnote on one page that legal immigrants cannot be treated differently from illegal aliens."

In the section titled A Citizenship of Consent, not Feudal Allegiance Eastman says"

"Once one considers the full import of Justice Gray's language in Wong Kim Ark, it becomes clear that his proposition is simply incompatible not only with the text of the Citizenship Clause, but with the political theory of the American Founding as well.

"At its core, as articulated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, that political theory posits the following: Governments are instituted among particular peoples, comprised of naturally equal human beings, to secure for themselves certain unalienable rights. Such governments, in order to be legitimate, must be grounded in the consent of the governed-a necessary corollary to the self-evident proposition of equality.[30] This consent must be present, either explicitly or tacitly, not just in the formation of the government, but also in the ongoing decision whether to embrace others within the social compact of the particular people. As formulated in the Massachusetts Bill of Rights of 1780:

"The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body-politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquility their natural rights…. The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals; it is a social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen and each citizen with the whole people that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.[31]

"[T]he social contract requires reciprocal consent. Not only must the individual consent to be governed, but he must also be accepted by the community as a whole. If all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are to be counted citizens-even those whose parents are in the United States illegally- then this would be tantamount to the conferral of citizenship without the consent of "the whole people."[32]

"In other words, birthright citizenship is contrary to the principle of consent that is one of the bedrock principles of the American regime.

"Such a claim of birthright citizenship traces its roots not to the republicanism of the American Founding, grounded as it was in the consent of the governed, but to the feudalism of medieval England, grounded in the notion that a subject owed perpetual allegiance and fealty to his sovereign.[33] A necessary corollary of the feudal notion of citizenship was the ban on expatriation, embraced by England and described by Blackstone as follows:

"Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king's dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king's protection…. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, canceled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance…. For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other, and cannot be divested without the concurrence act of that prince to whom it was first due.[34]

"Thus, when Congress passed as a companion to the Fourteenth Amendment the Expatriation Act of 1868, which provided simply that "the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," it necessarily rejected the feudal birthright citizenship doctrine of medieval England as fundamentally incompatible with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. As Representative Woodward of Pennsylvania noted on the floor of the House of Representatives: "It is high time that feudalism were driven from our shores and eliminated from our law, and now is the time to declare it."[35]

"Such remnants of feudalism were rejected by our nation's Founders when they declared to a candid world that they no longer owed allegiance to the king of their birth. They were rejected again by the Congress in 1866 and by the nation when it ratified the Fourteenth Amendment."

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( OriginalBirtherDocument24.blogspot.com )

The Chancery Court of New York in the case of Lynch v. Clarke (1844), in an extensive historical analysis priror to the 14th Amendment, concluded that the term “natural born citizen” derives from the English Common Law’s ancient principle of birth within the realm and within the allegiance of the King, conferring natural born subjecthood, without regard to the citizenship of the parents.

First and foremost, the English common law with respect to citizenship is based on perpetual allegiance to the sovereign. In the English common law, the sovereign does not recognize a declaration of independence by its subjects and considers subjugation perpetual unless the sovereign banishes the subject from the dominion. The King can terminate your citizenship without your permission.

In US common law, the People are sovereign and the Constitution delegates limited authority to the US federal government. Free of fraud in obtaining citizenship, the US federal government is not authorized to terminate the citizenship of a member of the sovereign unless there is a formal request from the citizen.

Article II is poison pill defense against foreign encroachment upon the constitutional republic with the permission of the sovereign. The People are not constrained by the Constitution and are permitted to promote a candidate who will violate Article II in times of unhappiness. See Federalist No. 78. If the people choose a candidate who will violate Article II and elect a candidate with obligations to a foreign power, then the US federal government, as a servant of the People, is powerless to prevent the will of the sovereign. A violation of Article II terminates the Constitution and the US federal government is powerless to serve the interests of the foreign power.

Or do you agree the term natural born citizen is a reference to a person who does not have legally viable obligations to a foreign power to prevent the collapse of the constitutional republic?

The case of Lynch v. Clarke (1844) was a poorly decided decision. I have written extensively on the decision, showing why it was and continues to be bad law. I'll just leave you with one point now. The Lynch case was a New York State court decision dealing with inheritance of property located in the State of New York. That kind of case surely does not decide the constitutional issue of who is an Article II natural born citizen and therefore eligible to be President. Rather, whatever the court decided is binding only in the State of New York. The Lynch court found that after July 4, 1776 and continuing after the Constitution was ratified, most of the states had adopted the English common law rule of jus soli until abrogated by their state legislatures. It correctly recognized that citizenship of the United States would have to be defined by a national rule and not just a state one. Then, without any evidence, it just proclaimed that the state rule that existed in several states was the natural rule of citizenship. That is completely wrong. Other than the original citizens who were first state citizens and then upon the ratification of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution became the citizens of the United States, after Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, no state was authorized to make a citizen of the United States. The notion that a sole state, dealing with a state inheritance property issue, could decide who was a citizen of the United States throughout the United States and even that such person was a natural born citizen and eligible to be President is preposterous given our federalist system, Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution (the privileges and immunities clause), and the need to have a uniform system of citizenship throughout the United States.

There are many more problems with the Lynch decision which I have written upon, but I will leave you with what I have just said.

Professor Rob Natelson is pushing his erroneous definition of an Article II natural born citizen. Now he is doing it under the guise of giving what he calls an "objective" guide to understanding the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is his article, "An Objective Guide to Birthright Citizenship, at American Thinker, acceded at http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/an_objective_guide_to_birthright_citizenship_comments.html#disqus_thread, with a comment that I just posted there:

Rob Natelson has a hidden agenda here, despite his claim to being "objective." He is in the end pushing his definition of a natural born citizen which he says includes any child born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of the child's parents, who is not excluded by the foreign diplomat and military invader exceptions. As we can see, he takes his 14th Amendment article as an opportunity to tell us what he thinks a natural born citizen is. But the Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with defining a natural born citizen. In fact, both Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898) said that the Amendment did not define a natural born citizen. In the end, Natelson does not provide a persuasive argument for his conclusion that children born in the United States to illegal aliens are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment and he fails miserably on his statement that Wong Kim Ark held that Wong, born in the United States to "two legally resident foreigners was a natural born citizen." It held he was a "citizen of the United States" from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment and never mentioned that Wong was a natural born citizen. On the contrary, Wong Kim Ark distinguished a natural born citizen from a citizen of the United States at birth under the Amendment.

Natelson also fails miserably in saying that the "most important lesson of Wong was this: the Constitution's version of 'allegiance' was the version we inherited from Great Britain in 1776 - not versions prevailing in other countries or under international law." On the contrary, the historical and legal record demonstrates that with the American Revolution, the Founders and Framers rejected the broad notion of allegiance under the colonial English common law (that all persons located or born on the King's soil, except for foreign diplomats and military invaders, owed him allegiance for life) and replaced it with a definition of allegiance based on principles of consent which they found in Enlightenment philosophies and the law of nations. Actually, their whole notion of legitimate government and a free people was based on consent to be governed. Therefore, the Framers defined an Article II natural born citizen, not under colonial English common law which defined a "natural-born subject" and imposed that status upon him or her for life, but rather under American national common law, which incorporated the citizenship principles of the law of nations, as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens, who upon reaching the age of majority was free to accept the allegiance and citizenship with which he or she was born or cast if off and accept another.

Ai ya yai is what I said after I read Rob Natelson's American Thinker article, August 31, 2015, "An Objective Guide to Birthright Citizenship." Ai ya yai is what my Spanish speaking friends say here in El Paso, Texas, only about five miles from Juarez, Mexico, said by researchers to be the murder capitol of the world (ai ya yai).

A Quote from Natelson (bold emphases mine) -

"United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) ruled that the U.S.-born child of two legally resident foreigners was a natural born citizen. ... The result was different in Wong primarily because the Constitution implicitly made it easier for foreigners to get automatic citizenship than tribal Indians. ...

"The most important lesson of Wong was this: the Constitution's version of "allegiance" was the version we inherited from Great Britain in 1776 – not versions prevailing in other countries or under international law. This agrees with the independent conclusion in my book, The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

So, implicitly speaking, Professor Natelson can also be construed to be saying that “born” in “All persons born or naturalized ….” in the Fourteenth Amendment means the same thing as “born” in “natural “born” Citizen” in Article II section 1 clause 5. That is a “citizen” who is automatically a U.S. citizen by birth AND, the cherry on top, a natural “born” citizen even if both parents are not U.S. citizens.

So, y'all come, now, hear? That includes stealth jihad terrorists who are “dreamers” of the world wide ummah, the Arabic word for the marxist collective.

Maybe, this would be a good time to post what Professor Edward Erler said on Mark Levin's radio program a few days ago about “automatically” as it applies to “jurisdiction” in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Their emphasis is illegal aliens, anchor babies and “automatic” birthright citizenship. However, “automatic” also applies to the U.S. born children of aliens whom Prof. Natelson identifies as “legal resident foreigners,” since, before the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court declared their children to be “citizens,” and whom Prof. Natelson further says are “natural born citizen” also, before they were declared to be “citizens” they were alien children of alien parents.

Fourteenth Amendment

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Posted by The Right Scoop on Aug 19, 2015 at 8:07 PM“Mark Levin interviews a professor who is one of the foremost EXPERTS on birthright citizenship”

2 part conversation on TheRightScoop.com>> http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-interviews-a-professor-who-is-one-of-the-foremost-experts-on-birthright-citizenship/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

PART 1[...snip]

Levin-Now, Professor Erler, Ed, this birthright citizenship issue has come up again, and it amazes me, it amazes me that people that push this policy for birthright citizenship for illegal alien babies pretend that the Constitution's on their side and that we have to amend the Constitution to say what it actually says.

Erler-Well, the Constitution is not on their side, it has never been on their side, and it doesn't require a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship. I think the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment would be astounded at the low level of the debate that's taking place today.

If you just look at the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, "all persons born or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States." There are two requirements, [1] you have to be born or naturalized, [2] but you must also be subject to the jurisdiction.

Mark-Let me stop you right there. I just want to take it step by step.

Is it not true, if an illegal alien baby were to be an immediate American citizen, that that's all we would need is the front part of that section, correct?

Erler- That's exactly right.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The "front part" that Mark is referring to is "All persons born or naturalized...is a citizen...." That means that "jurisdiction" is not needed if "all persons born" on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens the instant they are born on U.S. soil.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mark-Which says, anybody born in the United States is what? Can be a citizen or naturalized. Great. Ok, why do we need any more?

Erler-That's exactly right. If you say that all persons born here are automatically citizens, then you've rendered the jurisdiction clause of the Constitution superfluous. If the framers had meant that everybody born here is automatically a citizen they would have left out the jurisdiction clause. So, you've automatically amended the Constitution by saying that anyone born here is automatically a citizen.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Prof. Erler is saying that the "birthright citizenship" proponents who assert that birth on U.S. soil automatically makes a person a citizen and that what is meant by "born" is automatic citizenship, then it is they who have amended "jurisdiction" out of the Constitution by asserting that birth automatically makes a person a citizen.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Levin- Has the Supreme Court ever ruled that?

Erler-No, never. Never a ruling by the Supreme Court that says that children of illegal aliens born in the United States are citizens of the United States. There's never been a case on point.

Levin-Now, let's take this next section which is crucially important and in which you are the expert as far as I'm concerned. Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. We have a lot of slip and fall lawyers running around professing to know that means the geographic territories of the United States. Now, that can't possibly mean that, can it?

Erler-Well, most people say that it means that you're just subject to the courts of the United States, or subject to the laws of the United States, but what the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment said, it means owing allegiance to the United States. Owing exclusive allegiance.

One of the interesting things that came up at debate was that Jacob Howard, who was Senator from Michigan, who was the author of the citizenship clause, he was asked whether the Fourteenth Amendment would make Indians citizens of the United States, and he said no. They were born in the United States, he said, but they were not subject to the jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes and not to the United States.

So, what it means to owe allegiance is, not to be subject to the laws of the United States, but it means to owe allegiance, exclusive allegiance, to the United States. And I submit to you that those people who come to the United States, breaking the laws of the United States, are not demonstrating allegiance to the United States or allegiance to the laws of the United States. And it would just be incredible to believe that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment would confer the boon of citizenship upon the children of illegal immigrants when they said explicitly that that boon was not to be conferred upon the children of native persons.

Levin-And so, I guess the question is, how did we get from that to where we are today where people insist, no, if somebody's born here in the United States of illegal alien parents or an illegal alien mother, then they have automatic citizenship. Who says? What, the State Department?

Erler-As nearly as I can figure it out, it must have been the decision somewhere along the line in the State Department. The only Supreme Court case that we have that is even close is a case call Wong Kim Ark in 1898, where the child born in the United States of legal immigrant parents, was declared to be a citizen of the United States, but nowhere has a Supreme Court decision ruled that children of illegal immigrants are citizens of the United States. So, I cannot figure out, myself, and I've tried to my best, where the decision to make children of illegal immigrants was decided.

Levin-But it's not in the constitution. It's not in the history of the amendment. It's not in a Supreme Court decision, so it must have been burped out of the bureaucracy somewhere, right?

Erler-That's my belief, yes. Now, the other thing about whether or not it would require a constitutional amendment. I think that that is simply not the case for this reason. In 1870, this was two years after the Fourteenth Amendment ratified, the Senate asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to do a study about the status of American Indians, and the Judiciary Committed issued a report that said it is very, very clear that the amendment did not tend to make citizens out of American Indians, that the primary purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the citizenship of the newly freed slaves.

Levin-Now, let me stop you there. Why did they need to settle the citizenship, just for historic purposes? Why did they need to settle that. 'Cause the states were a problem then, weren't they?

Erler-Yes. Prior to the Civil War, state citizenship was primary. Every citizen of a state, for all practical purposes, was considered to be a citizen of the United States. So, that, in order to keep the states from denying citizenship to the newly freed states, uh, the newly freed slaves, the citizenship had to be reversed. Federal citizenship had to come first, and state citizenship was derivative from federal citizenship.

Levin-So, this was one of three, what we call, civil rights amendments. And, by the way, who had to ratify these amendments?

Erler-The states.

Levin-So the states are imposing upon themselves, it's quintessential federalism. For people,"and the federal government?" No, the states did this.

Erler-Exactly right. But, my point was this. After the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Congress began to pass pieces of legislation inviting various Indian tribes, or extending offers of citizenship to members of various Indian tribes.

Levin-Professor Edward Erler, expert on many things constitutional and political, including the Fourteenth Amendment and the so-called birthright citizenship clause.

Professor, you were talking about no amendment needed. The amendment says what it says. Go right ahead.

Erler-My point was that American Indians were not included within the jurisdiction of the United States according to the Fourteenth Amendment as originally passed. Congress passed federal pieces of legislation under their authority, under the Fourteenth Amendment, bringing American Indians under the jurisdiction of the United States. In 1923 they passed a law offering citizenship to all native Americans.

So, this is precedent where Congress has passed legislation determining who is within the jurisdiction of the United States. And it is my contention that Congress could, today, pass legislation determining again who is within the jurisdiction of the United States, this time saying that children born of illegal aliens are not within the jurisdiction of the United States, not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. So, there is precedence for such legislation.

And as we currently speak, there are bills circulating in both House and Senate purporting to do that very thing. Those bill probably will not pass, and they would certainly be vetoed by President Obama, but at least there is an attempt to pass such legislation.

Levin-So, Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4, does not Congress have plenary power in this regard? You know, we talk about what will the courts do? The courts have implied judicial authority I would argue, implied judicial review authority, I should say. But, here we have and explicit grant of power to Congress. Do we not?

Erler-We do, but under the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5, which gives Congress the power to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, they have already exercised their legislative power to say who is withing the jurisdiction of the United States, and I think they could just simply do that, saying children of illegal immigrants, born within the boundaries of the United States are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Levin-What about children of diplomats? I mean, you're a diplomat, you come to the United States, you're serving, you have a child here. Under the theory of those who talk about birthright citizenship as a matter of geographic jurisdiction, wouldn't that child automatically become a United States citizen?

Erler-No. I think it was simply understood at the time, they would not be considered.

By the way, Senator Howard, when he made a statement about the Fourteenth Amendment, who would be within the jurisdiction, said diplomats would not be.

Levin-No, that's what I'm trying to underscore.

Erler-Diplomats would not be, but he also said those who are here who are aliens would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. So he said very, very clearly at the beginning that aliens and children of aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. So, I don't know why we don't just take the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment at their word, and stop this nonsense about all persons born within the geographical confines of the United States are automatic citizens of the United States.

No country who can't determine who are to become citizens is any longer a sovereign nation. I think it's that simple. If we can't determine who are to become citizens or treat citizens differently from non citizens, I'm sorry, we're just no longer a sovereign nation. It is that simple.

Levin-There's really only a few countries that do this. We do. I know Canada does. There can't be many.

Levin-Let me ask you this. Let's make this in plain English as we can so that even I can understand it.

What about those who refer to common law? What does common law have to do with this, as opposed to constitutional or statutory law?

Erler-A lot of people say, people on the progressive side of the political scale say the Fourteenth Amendment adopted the common law standard of citizenship, which is birthright citizenship. But, if you look at what the common law says [sentence not finished].

Levin-Alright, let's stop. What is common law?

Erler-Well, this was the law that was in force during colonial times and is still the law in force in Britain. But, the common law in, Blackstone is the authority, he wrote in the mid eighteenth century a huge multivolume work, commentaries on the common law of England. When he talks about birthright, he calls it subjectship. He never uses the word citizenship in all of his commentaries on the common law of England. It's always birthright subjectship. And he said that the law of subjectship in England is a borrowing from feudal law. It is the relationship between master and servant. There is no such thing as citizenship under the common law. And what he says is, if you were born within the protection of the king, you owe allegiance forever to the king as a debt of gratitude. In other words, you can never get rid of your debt of gratitude to the king.

Now, in the Declaration of Independence, we said that we are dissolving our allegiance to the king of Great Britain. We no longer owe allegiance to the king of Great Britain. Now, I submit to you, having dissolved our allegiance to the king, which by the way is a gross violation of the English common law as it was understood at the time, do you think that the framers of our constitution adopted the British common law of birthright subjectship as the ground of our citizenship? That's too absurd for anybody to even consider.

Levin-Well, you say it's too absurd. I think I just read, I hope I'm not wrong in saying this. I think I just read a former staffer to John Cornyn, the senior Senator, Republican from Texas, making that point. Referring to common law, which is so absurd. Why do we even have to refer to common law?

Erler-I have no idea. James Wilson, who was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, a member of the Constitutional Convention and later a Supreme Court Justice said in one of his Supreme Court opinions, in America there are citizens but no subjects. And that is the message of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There are citizens but there are no subjects, but under the common law there are only subjects.

In 1868, in a companion piece to the Fourteenth Amendment, the same senators and congressmen who passed the Fourteenth Amendment, passed what is known as the Expatriation Act in which they said the doctrine of the common law basis for citizenship is a feudal doctrine which we are repealing, and we are allowing people of America to repudiate their citizenship if they want to leave the country. Under the common law it is impossible to repudiate your citizenship and to go to some other place where you think you can get a better deal.

Levin-So, you point here is, common law had nothing to do with this. In fact, it defeats the argument because we're talking about being subjects, not citizens, if you actually adhere to common law. That's number one. Number two, as a lawyer I can tell you, you would never have to refer to common law. We have a constitution, and that constitution has an amendment, and the amendment says what it says, the history behind the amendment says what it says, and if people want to confer birthright citizenship on illegal alien children, then they have to amend the constitution, not us.

Erler-That's exactly right. You hit the nail right on the head there, Mark, and I think that encapsulates the whole thing.

There used to be a doctrine of constitutional jurisprudence that said that whatever was in the common law that was contrary to the principles of the Declaration of Independence was repealed at the revolution. And if there was anything that was contrary to the principles of the Declaration, it was the doctrine of perpetual allegiance to the king of Great Britain. And that's what the common law required with respect to birthright subjectship. That has no place in America, and it was repealed by the Declaration, and it was repealed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Levin-And it just amazes me, not only progressives, professor, use this argument of subjugation, they may not even realize it, but, they're in to subjugation, if you ask me, but you have Republicans making the same argument, frankly, linking to it on some of our favorite websites. Have you noticed that?

Erler-I have noticed that, and I think it's a travesty.

Levin-It's an outrage.

Erler-It is.

[...snip]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Well, Mario, it looks like your work is not finished yet, and neither is the work of We the People finished, since it has not really started yet. When “born” in the Fourteenth Amendment and “born” in Article II are identified as meaning ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil, and, as applied to Article II for POTUS eligibility, ONLY birth to two U.S. citizen married parents, and, as applied to the Fourteenth Amendment for citizenship eligibility, either two U.S. citizen married parents OR one U.S. citizen parent, maybe, at that time, commonsense will reign again.

Well, at least that's the way I see it.

For Article II “natural born Citizen” POTUS eligibility:

_ONLY singular U.S. citizenship_ONLY by birth on U.S. soil (or U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil)_ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents_ONLY married to each other_BEFORE the child is born

For Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” eligibility but NOT POTUS eligibility:

_EITHER singular U.S. citizenship (not POTUS eligible – both parents are U.S. citizens but NOT married to each other)_OR dual U.S./foreign citizenship (not POTUS eligible – parents have mixed citizenship and are NOT married to each other)_ONLY by birth on U.S. soil (or U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil)_ONLY by birth to at least one U.S. citizen parent (not POTUS eligible)

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( OriginalBirtherDocument24.blogspot.com )

Do you have any thoughts on a national referendum to repeal and replace the 14th Amendment at the ballot box?

Only the People can define a natural born citizen. The US Congress is not authorized to define a natural born citizen and the Court's authorization is coextensive with Congress. See Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964) 166; "While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception [a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President], "becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights."

An national referendum to repeal and replace the 14th Amendment that is on every ballot in all fifty states and the District of Columbia to express the will of the majority could be the first step make America great again.

How do Levin and Erler get so deep into the definition and foundation of citizenship regarding illegal immigrants and their children and still remain blind to the definition of "natural born citizen" regarding Obama, Cruz, Jindal, and Rubio?

To be fair, I didn't hear the entire interview. Did they even cover this question? If so, what did they say about it?

"... this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other, and cannot be divested without the concurrence act of that prince to whom it was first due." and "... the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people ..."

America did continue the feudal principle that natural allegiance "cannot be divested without the concurrence act of that prince to whom it was first due." Termination of US citizenship is a two part process. First the US citizen must renounce. A US citizen who has renounced is still a US citizen entitled to all the privileges, immunities and obligations of all US citizens. US citizenship is not terminated until a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN) is issued by the US federal government. As with the feudal system, a concurrent act is required before allegiance owed and the expectation obligations will be met are terminated. In the United States, the concurring act is the issuance of a CLN.

A test case was initiated for Obama in 2010 to determined the limits of the constitutional authority the US federal government has with respect to the issuance of a CLN. In Fox v. Clinton, 751 F. Supp. 2d 122 - 2010, plaintiff Fox requested a CLN after he claimed to naturalized in a foreign state and swore an oath of allegiance to a foreign state. The State Department denied Fox a CLN and he sued in the USDC DDC. The District Court dismissed and Fox appealed, Fox v. Clinton, 684 F. 3d 67 - 2012 - Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia.

Stay with me because this is tangentially related to Obama.

Before filing suit, Fox appealed his denial of a CLN administratively. The State Department denied Fox a CLN through an administrative procedure described in the "Betancourt Letter." See Letter from Edward A. Betancourt, Dir., Office of Policy Review and Interagency Liaison, Bureau of Consular Affairs, to Jack. L. B. Gohn, Esq. (March 8, 2010) (“Betancourt Letter”), reprinted in App. 139.

The Court of Appeals found,

"We affirm the District Court’s judgment only insofar as itupholds the Department’s decision that Appellant is not eligiblefor a CLN under Section 2 of the INA. We reverse and remand,however, the District Court’s judgment dismissing Appellant’schallenge to the Department decision denying his request for aCLN under Section 1. The agency’s statutory interpretation ofSection 1 of the INA, as rendered in the Betancourt Letter, is notentitled to Chevron deference. And, because the Departmentfailed to provide any coherent explanation for its decisionregarding the applicability of Section 1, the agency’s action wasarbitrary and capricious for want of reasoned decisionmaking.We reverse the judgment of the District Court on these pointsand remand with instructions to remand the case to theDepartment for reconsideration of Appellant’s request for aCLN pursuant to Section 1 of the INA."

A devastating blow to the US State Department. The Administrative procedure described in the Betancourt letter was the very procedure used to cancel the CLN issued to Obama in 1968. The US federal government is a servant of the People and must issue a CLN upon request after the US citizen demonstrates he or she has naturalized in a foreign state. The State Department did not have constitutional authority to cancel Obama's CLN in 2008. Obama is the first President of the United States to have a Certificate of Loss of Nationality issued to him during his lifetime on file while sitting as President of the United States.

"How do Levin and Erler get so deep into the definition and foundation of citizenship regarding illegal immigrants and their children and still remain blind to the definition of "natural born citizen"...."

Dittos Robert, great observation.

The discussion was about the birthright citizenship of the children of illegal immigrants, so Levin and Erler did not get anywhere near "nbC" in their discussion.

Levin's point is clarified in part #6, the first paragraph, on August 31, 2015 at 11:59 PM:

Levin-"...if people want to confer birthright citizenship on illegal alien children, then they have to amend the constitution, not us."

Erler-"That's exactly right. You hit the nail right on the head there, Mark, and I think that encapsulates the whole thing."

To me it seems a natural link between the obvious singular U.S. citizenship implication of "born" in "No person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of President" in Article II, and the obvious singular U.S. citizenship implication of "born" in "All persons born or naturalized...and subject to the jurisdiction..." in the Fourteenth Amendment.

The words "subject...jurisdiction" can ONLY imply ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of the child born in the United States, because the original intent of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment was to hardwire the original intent of the 1866 Civil Rights Act for the benefit of the already FREE Negroes of 1866 and 1868 who had already been freed by the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment before Pres. Lincoln was assassinated by Booth.

Of course, the implication of "born" and "naturalized" and "subject...jurisdiction" also applied to the Caucasians already living and domiciled in the United States, and those of any race or nationality who would be naturalized later, including the Chinese after the Chinese Exclusion Acts were rescinded, so the ethnicity of the new "citizen" by birth or naturalization did not need to be specified in the same way that Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment excluded the indigenous Indians, "excluding Indians not taxed," because they were not considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States until 1923.

It seems to me that a natural clarifying progression would be to work backwards to Article II from the Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 by applying to Article II Section 1 clause 5 what Prof. Erler said about feudal law and "subjectship" in his Blackstone reference:

>> "... And he [Blackstone] said that the law of subjectship in England is a borrowing from feudal law.

>> "It is the relationship between master and servant. There is no such thing as citizenship under the [British] common law" [i.e., the British "common law" regarding perpetual allegiance and subjectship, aka perpetual servant to perpetual master, not the American common law regarding allegiance and citizenship, allegiance of citizen to citizen under law].

[...snip]

>> "Now, in the Declaration of Independence, we said that we are dissolving our allegiance to the king of Great Britain.

>> "We no longer owe allegiance to the king of Great Britain.

>> "Now, I submit to you, having dissolved our allegiance to the king, ... do you think that the framers of our constitution adopted the British common law of birthright subjectship as the ground of our citizenship?

>> "That's too absurd for anybody to even consider."

That comment by Prof. Erler about dissolving “allegiance” and "British common law" is contrary to what Prof. Natelson said about "'allegiance'...we inherited from Great Britain in 1776" in my quote above on August 31, 2015 at 11:56 PM:

[...snip]

"The most important lesson of Wong was this: the Constitution's version of "allegiance" was the version we inherited from Great Britain in 1776 – not versions prevailing in other countries or under international law.…"

Natelson's reference to "other countries or under international law" looks like a tacit reference to Emer de Vattel and his Law of Nations book. Maybe Natelson will feel confident in the future to make the case, if this is his intent in the above quote, about why Vattel in not relevant to the American version of common law, allegiance, citizenship, and, as Prof. Erler put it, the 1868 “Expatriation Act in which they said the doctrine of the common law basis for citizenship is a feudal doctrine which we are repealing."

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( OriginalBirtherDocument24.blogspot.com )

Sven, I didn't quote Blackstone. In part #3 on August 31, 2015 at 11:58 PM, I quoted Prof. Erler who mentioned Blackstone and his historical point of view.

Erler's essential point was that the language of the Declaration of Independence severed the perpetual allegiance of the perpetual subjects of the British monarch, and that the U.S. Constitution codified the independence. Also, the Fourteenth Amendment affirmed U.S. sovereignty of the citizens, meaning that automatic birthright citizenship is not implicit in the American common law, not to be confused with the feudal law and British common law.

Natelson's comment "other countries or under international law" shows how much of a weasel he is. He makes it look like some other argument would be one under international law, thereby appealing to an anti-international law spirit. The truth of the matter is that the Founders and Framers called it the law of nations, not international law. Jeremy Bentham coined "international law" and the expression was not used until after the Constitution was ratified.

The allegiance of a US citizen, as a member of the sovereign, is perpetual and may only be terminated through the consent of the US citizen. The Treaty of Paris, 1783, recognized the colonies as independent and sovereign states. ("Acknowledging the United States (viz. the Colonies) to be free, sovereign and independent states, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, property, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof;"). The Framers realized the British Crown had not relinquished the citizens from subjugation. Further, the treaty protected the Loyalists in the States. ("The Congress of the Confederation will "earnestly recommend" to state legislatures to recognize the rightful owners of all confiscated lands and "provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects" (Loyalists); United States will prevent future confiscations of the property of Loyalists;")

The US federal government is not constitutionally authorized to extinguish the citizenship of a member of the sovereign without the citizen's express consent, but the US federal government is constitutionally mandated to deny eligibility to a US citizen with legally viable obligations to a foreign power. ("Citizenship is "beyond the power of any governmental unit to destroy," Afroyim, supra, 387 U.S. at 263, 87 S.Ct. at 1665,"). NBC status is not perpetual and may be lost and then recovered. Perkins v. Elg (1934). NBC status may be denied to a US citizen without his consent. Schneider v. Rusk (1934). ("Our concept of citizenship was inherited from England and, accordingly, was based on the principle that rights conferred by naturalization were subject to the conditions reserved in the grant. See Calvin's Case, 7 Co. Rep. 1 a, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608). I") and ("Only a native-born may become President, Art. II, § 1.").

The Framers invented the term natural born citizen to distinguish US citizens with obligations to a foreign power and deny those members of the sovereign eligibility to serve as POTUS.

First, this is my uncredentialed (aka not having letters after my name, whether summa cum laude, magna cum laude, cum laude, or whew, I made it), layman's response to Prof. Rob Natelson, who has another article on American Thinker in which he clarifies the 1868 “original genesis original intent” (my words) of the Fourteenth Amendment as understood by two prominent framers, Senators Lyman Trumbull of Illinois and Jacob Howard of Michigan, and how automatic birthright citizenship should be construed today in 2015 America.

Second, in my comment to Sven on September 4, 2015 at 12:38 PM, I wrote something accurate but it could be confusing if construed with Fourteenth Amendment intent as defined by the erroneous 1898 Wong Court: I wrote "...meaning that automatic birthright citizenship is not implicit in the American common law.…"

In a certain sense, “automatic birthright citizenship” definitely IS “implicit in the American common law” if the language is correctly applied and articulated.

If “birthright citizenship” means that the Fourteenth Amendment implies “automatic” U.S. citizenship for children of legal immigrants or children of illegal aliens, then, no, “not” is accurate. However, if originalists take control of the language and use “birthright citizenship” in a better way to constitutionally mean that the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 first sentence word “born” incorporates the 1787 meaning of “born” in “natural born Citizen” in Article II because the parents of the child born on U.S. soil are both U.S. citizens married to each other before the child is born, then, yes, it is accurate to say that “birthright citizenship” definitely IS “automatic” when U.S. citizenship as derived from the two U.S. citizen married parents.

The way "automatic birthright citizenship" is construed today in 2015 to mean that the children of legal immigrants or illegal aliens have “automatic” Fourteenth Amendment U.S. citizenship, yes, "automatic" citizenship for children of foreign citizenship parents, legal or illegal, was NOT implicit in the 1787 American common law as articulated in Article II Section 1 clause 5 ("No Person except a natural born [U.S.] Citizen"), or as articulated in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 sentence 1 ("All persons born...subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction").

Since the legal immigrant and the illegal alien single parent is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction as a U.S. single parent and a U.S. citizen, and the legal immigrant and illegal alien married parents are both not subject to U.S. jurisdiction as U.S. married parents and U.S. citizens, the obvious commonsense conclusion is that the alien child of legal immigrants or illegal aliens is also NOT subject to U.S. jurisdiction as a U.S. citizen. Commonsense, even in 2015 America, affirms that, starting in 1787 even foreigners, the legal immigrants and their children born on U.S. soil and illegal aliens and their children born on U.S. soil, were subject to the penal code prohibitions against murder, manslaughter, stealing, breaking and entering (either breaching the borders of a house on private property or breaching the borders of a country), etc., and statutes concerning owning of property. They simply were not under U.S. jurisdiction as naturalized U.S. citizens, and so they could not and still can not pass on to their children what they, the parents, do not have: U.S. citizenship.

However, "automatic" U.S. citizenship under the American common law (the common understanding) of "citizenship and allegiance" (which, since the July 4, 1776 Declaration of Independence, rejected English perpetual "subjectship" and perpetual allegiance" to the monarchy) definitely WAS in 1787 (and still IS in today 2015 by originalists, aka John Jay “born” birthers and constitutional original intent birthers) a commonsense implied reason for John Jay to underline the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington. That 1787 "automatic" construction obviously was also accepted by the Constitutional Convention delegates/framers and eventually was accepted by all thirteen states' ratifiers, including John Jay, a 1783 Treaty of Paris plenipotentiary signatory (one of three) ending the war of independence from England, a Union founder, a New York ratifier, and the first Supreme Court Chief Justice.

Since a child born in the U.S. to two U.S. citizen married parents in 1787 America meant that the child had "automatic" U.S. citizenship status by birth, well, that child, born to two U.S. citizen married parents, also had "automatic" "natural born Citizen" status by birth. Also, since, in 1787 America and in the following years, until the 1922 Cable Act gave the wife the option to retain her foreign citizenship or not, the wife in 1787 America acquired by marriage the U.S. citizenship of the husband. That being so, the U.S. citizenship of the husband determined the U.S. citizenship of the wife, AND the U.S. citizenship of BOTH parents “automatically” determined the U.S. citizenship of the child born after the marriage of the parents. This means that the child automatically acquired ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents.

This 1787 commonsense common law understanding continued to and through the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the three reconstruction amendments (1865 Thirteenth, 1868 Fourteenth, 1870 Fifteenth) until the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Court erroneously held that a child born on U.S. soil to legal immigrant alien parents, was, ipso facto, regardless of the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment word “born” as incorporated from the 1787 word “born” in “natural born Citizen” as a tacit reference to being born on U.S. soil to U.S. citizen parents, was by judicial fiat ALSO a U.S. citizen even though the U.S. citizenship was NOT derived from the foreign citizenship of the parents.

What the Court gives by fiat, the Court can take away and correct by fiat. If not the Court by fiat, then the Congress can take away and correct by statute. If not the Congress by statute, then the Congress can take away and correct by Article V amendment. If not the Congress by Article V amendment, then We the People with our state legislatures of the “several states” can take away and correct by amendment.

The way I see it:

By taking control of the language and using “automatic birthright citizenship” accurately so that “automatic” means either “by” birth on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent (a “citizen”), or “by” birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents (a “natural born Citizen”), both Article II Section 1 clause 5 and the Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 sentence 1 will cohere and make sense in a way that will show the error of the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Court holding that a child born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents is still a U.S. citizen. A coherent constitutional understanding of “born” and “citizen” in the Fourteenth Amendment that incorporates the original intent of “born” in “natural born Citizen” in Article II can be agreed to before a possible Article V convention of states to propose the amendment to clarify that “born” in the Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 sentence 1 and “born” in “natural born Citizen” in Article II Section 1 clause 5 can ONLY mean “born” on U.S. soil to either one (Fourteenth Amendment) U.S. citizen parent, or two (Article II) U.S. citizen married parents.

By statute the U.S. Congress can declare a child born on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent to be a U.S. citizen “at” birth but NOT “by” birth. For that reason the child, a U.S. citizen by statute, can NOT be a “natural born Citizen” “by” birth, and so the child is NOT “… eligible to the Office of President.”

By statute the U.S. Congress can also declare a child born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents to be a U.S. citizen “at” birth but NOT “by” birth. For that reason the child, a U.S. citizen by statute, also can NOT be a “citizen” “by” birth, and so the child is also NOT a “natural born Citizen” and is also NOT POTUS eligible.

A U.S. citizen “by” birth to one Fourteenth Amendment U.S. citizen parent obviously could NOT be a “natural born Citizen” “by” birth to two U.S. citizen married parents, and would NOT be POTUS eligible, while a U.S. citizen “by” birth to two Article II U.S. citizen married parents would be a “natural born Citizen” and so would be POTUS eligible.

While it is obvious that an Article II “natural born Citizen” “by” birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents, from whom is derived “singular” U.S. citizenship, is a higher hurdle than a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” “by” birth on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent, and definitely a much higher hurdle to a congressional statute “citizen” “at” birth, even a Fourteenth Amendment “born” citizen, aka a U.S. citizen “by” birth on U.S. soil to at least one U.S. citizen parent, is a higher hurdle than a congressional statute that simply declares in one session of Congress that citizenship is “at” birth on foreign soil for a child born to one U.S. citizen parent, and also a higher hurdle than the 1898 Supreme Court holding that citizenship is “at” birth on U.S. soil for a child born to zero U.S. citizen parents.

If one session of Congress can declare a child to be a U.S. citizen “at” birth, a succeeding session of Congress can change the previous citizenship “at” birth declaration to NOT a citizen “at” birth as was the case earlier in U.S. statute history when an alien was an alien, not only “at” birth by statute but “by” birth to alien parents.

However, absolutely NO Congress can rescind by statute, and absolutely NO Supreme Court can rescind by holding, that citizenship “by” birth, EITHER “by” birth to one Fourteenth Amendment U.S. citizen parent OR “by” birth to two Article II U.S. citizen married parents, is the original genesis original intent of “born” in “natural born Citizen” in Article II Section 1 clause 5 and “All persons born...subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction” in Section 1 sentence 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

That is a constitutional way to use the language to clarify that “automatic birthright citizenship” is implicit in “born” in “natural born Citizen” in Article II Section 1 clause 5 and implicit in “born” in the Fourteenth Amendment when applied ONLY to a child born on U.S. soil, and ONLY to a child born a U.S. citizen “by” birth to one OR two U.S. citizen parents.

If Congress wants to declare that a citizen “by” birth on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent is a “singular” U.S. citizen and NOT a dual U.S./foreign citizen, Congress can do so, according to Article I and Section 5 of Article V. However, because the “singular” U.S. citizenship status would be by statute, the child so declared to be a “singular” U.S. citizen could NOT be construed to have “singular” U.S. citizenship “by” birth as would a “natural born Citizen,” and so the child would NOT be “...eligible to the Office of President.” If the Congress does not pass such a statute, the child is, “by” birth to one U.S. citizen parent, a dual U.S./foreign citizen if the parent is NOT married to the U.S. citizen partner (or the foreign citizen partner), of if the U.S. citizen parent IS married to the foreign citizen partner, or if the other parent/partner, U.S. citizen or foreign citizen, is not known, or, if known, does not or can not accept paternity or maternity.

For these reasons and more that could be added (e.g., the jihad percolating in America is an internal ideological struggle that transcends political parties, and, it seems to me, only the intervention of the architect of the universe, YHWH (pronounced Yahuah, some prefer Yahweh) the transcendent Creator, can alleviate the pain that is coming to America), this is the way I see it:

_“Automatic birthright citizenship” for a child born on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent?—NO!

_“Automatic birthright citizenship” for a child born on U.S. soil to illegal alien parents?—NO!

_“Automatic birthright citizenship” for a child born on U.S. soil to legal immigrant parents?—NO!

_“Automatic birthright citizenship” for a child born on U.S. soil to legal immigrants and one parent joins the military service but who, at this time, can not become a U.S. citizen by statute/naturalization until AFTER release from service?—NO!

_“Automatic birthright citizenship” for a child born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent but NOT “...eligible to the Office of President”?—YES!

_“Automatic birthright citizenship” for a child born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents and the ONLY “by” birth citizen “...eligible to the Office of President”?—YES!

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( OriginalBirtherDocument24.blogspot.com )

Yes, Professor Robert Natelson is at it again. He follows with another article, “Birthright Citizenship Opponents Should Not Rely on 14th Amendment Congressional Debates,” accessed at http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/birthright_citizenship_opponents_should_not_rely_on_14th_amendment_congressional_debates.html . There he states:

* As I explained recently, in two cases the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that the Citizenship Clause’s term “subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction” means subject to the English common law doctrine of “allegiance.” In general, that doctrine recognizes most children born in a country as natural born citizens, including the children of visiting foreigners. And in the more crucial case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the allegiance rationale was central to the holding, not mere “dicta” as sometimes asserted.

So again, under the guise of writing on the Fourteenth Amendment debate, Natelson again tells the reader what he thinks a natural born citizen is. Here he errs again. Now he tells us that the English common law doctrine of allegiance “recognizes most children born in a country as natural born citizens, including the children of visiting foreigners.” What is amazing about this statement is that Natelson tells us that the English common law did something which did not even exist in that law. There is no such thing as a citizen or natural born citizen in the English common law. There is also no evidence that the Framers used the English common law to define a natural born citizen. Hence, how could the English common law doctrine of allegiance recognize anyone as a natural born citizen? It cannot.

Additionally, Natelson says that Wong Kim Ark defined an Article II natural born citizen and that such definition is not dicta. Again, Natelson is just making things up, for Wong Kim Ark never held that Wong was a natural born citizen, let alone define a natural born citizen any differently than how Minor defined one. So, it is not that Wong Kim Ark’s statement that Wong was a natural born citizen is dicta. Rather, it is that Wong Kim Ark never even made any such statement.

As we can see, Natelson is really far out on the limb on the meaning of a natural born citizen. He has no further room to go other than to just fall off.

>> "As we can see, Natelson is really far out on the limb on the meaning of a natural born citizen. He has no further room to go other than to just fall off."

The confusion continues with the use of "birthright citizenship" continuing to be applied with approval to children born on U.S. soil to illegal aliens or legal immigrants as well as to children born to one OR two U.S. citizens. When "birthright citizenship" begins to be applied accurately ONLY to children born on U.S. soil to at least one U.S. citizen parent, married or not, and ONLY to children born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents, "birthright citizenship" will make coherent sense when "born" in "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 clause 5 is incorporated into Section 1 sentence 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Do not rely on 14th Amendment congressional Debates—YESDo rely on John Jay—YES2/

In the fifth paragraph from the end, Natelson wrote (I separated the sentences):

>> "Most of the other former slaves also were legally aliens: They were the descendants of foreigners; neither they nor their ancestors had ever been naturalized.

["...neither...nor...naturalized" is a true statement, and that fact was rectified by "naturalized" in the Fourteenth Amendment]

>> "Because they were slaves they could not take advantage of the common law rules of allegiance to claim natural-born status.

["...common law rules of allegiance to claim natural-born status" is a curious conclusion, and Natelson does not adduce any history to support the tacit suggestion that claiming natural-born status was attempted before 1868 or since then, by any race. Elk in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) claimed "citizen" status, not "natural-born" status]

>> "In fact, under the rule issued by the Supreme Court in its notorious 1857 Dred Scott decision, all African-Americans living within the United States, whether or not enslaved, were legally foreigners.

>> "Arguably, then, the Citizenship Clause could not have accomplished its goals of overruling Dred Scott and affirming citizenship for African-Americans if it had excluded foreigners and their progeny."

["Arguably,...could not...if" is tentative language, not conclusive]

In the fourth paragraph from the end, Natelson wrote:

"Arguably, then, if the Fourteenth Amendment had excluded foreigners and their progeny, it could not have achieved the goal of granting citizenship to newly freed slaves."

["Arguably,...if...could not" is tentative language, not conclusive]

Mario, it is this kind of "if/then" tentative and not conclusive conclusion that I had in mind when I wrote previously here on your blog (September 5, 2015 at 10:39 PM) that if "born" in "All persons born...subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction" in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is associated with "born" in "natural born [U.S.] Citizen" in Article II Section 1 clause 5, the incorporation of the original intent of "born" which is inherent in Article II will affirm the Article II original intent (U.S. soil and U.S. citizen parents) and affirm the coherence that is inherent in the original intent (U.S. soil and at least one U.S. citizen parent) word "born" in the Fourteenth Amendment.

The "if/then" conclusion sounds plausible when the fact of the continuing illegal importation of slaves is adduced to support a presupposition based on logic that "appears" to be so and is "arguably" so, but is not so in the debates themselves. Natelson does not adduce any debate quotes about the illegal importation of slaves continuing, and so, using Prof. Natelson's logic, it "appears" that the continuing illegal importation of slaves was "apparently" implicit in the "possible" intent of the Fourteenth Amendment even though the continuing illegal importation of slaves was not, it "appears," explicit in the debates.

Do not rely on 14th Amendment congressional Debates—YESDo rely on John Jay—YES3/

Why?

Is it because the debates do not support Prof. Natelson's eisegetical conclusion?

The "if/then" conclusion of Prof. Natelson could be made to cohere with both the Fourteenth Amendment "born" and Article II "born" as originally intend by John Jay (see below).

But, hey, what do I know? I don't have honorably earned letters indicating esteemed constitutional scholarship after my name (other than one BA in religion, which I did not pursue into Christian ministry) indicating respected achievement as Prof. Natelson has, followed by twenty-five years of esteemed teaching.

None of the preceding sentence has any sarcasm, intended OR implied. I sincerely mean the words "honorably earned" and "respected achievement" and "esteemed" to convey respect. With respect I can ask the next question about Prof. Natelson's Article II "natural born Citizen" aberration as revealed in his Fourteenth Amendment aberration that the 1868 slaves could not "claim" "natural-born status" before ratification of the amendment.

I'm curious.

How can Prof. Rob Natelson be so right about the original intent of Article V where "...the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments..." and be so wrong about "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen at the time..." in Article II Section 1 clause 5 and also so wrong about "All persons born...subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction..." in Section 1 sentence 1 in the Fourteenth Amendment?

I think I have at least one plausible reason for Prof. Natelson can be so right about Article V and so wrong about the Fourteenth Amendment. He did not consider to adduce John Jay and his original intent as the author of the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington. If Prof. Natelson wants to use tentative language like "appears" and "arguably" to make a reasonably sounding conclusion, for example, about the continuing illegal importation of slaves into antebellum America before the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, well, maybe he can posthumously ask John Jay some basic questions about Jay's "original genesis original intent" for underling the word "born" in "natural born Citizen."

For example, Mr. Chief Justice John Jay, on July 25, 1787, when you underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in your note to George Washington regarding who would be "...eligible to the Office of President," what did you mean? After virtually no debate by the delegates/framers about your meaning of "born" in "natural born Citizen," the framers who signed the new constitution accepted and adopted your language suggestion with your "original genesis original intent" (those are my words Mr. Jay) meaning, and sent the entire constitution to the states for ratification.

Do not rely on 14th Amendment congressional Debates—YESDo rely on John Jay—YES4/

So, what did you mean Mr. Chief Justice, and what did the framers and ratifiers, and you were one of the New York ratifiers, what did the other ratifiers understand you to mean?

1_Did you mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship?

2_Did you mean EITHER singular U.S. citizenship OR ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship?

3_Did you mean ONLY born on U.S. soil?

4_Did you mean EITHER born on U.S. soil OR born on foreign soil?

5_Did you mean ONLY born to two U.S. citizen parents married to each other BEFORE the child is born?

6_Did you mean ONLY born to two U.S. citizen parents who were NOT married to each BEFORE the child was born?

7_Did you mean ALSO born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents?

8_Did you mean ALSO born on foreign soil to at least one U.S. citizen parent, married or not?

9_Did you mean ALSO born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen married parents, as stated in the 1790 Naturalization Act which "considered" (that is statute language) a child born on foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents to be a "natural born Citizen" before the 1795 Naturalization Act changed the designation from "natural born Citizen" to "citizen?"

I think that John Jay, an original founder, an original ratifier, and an original birther according to the "born" word in Article II Section 1 clause 5, would bring coherence to Prof. Natelson's articulation of "natural born Citizen" in both Article II and the Fourteenth Amendment as he attempts to substantiate that the antebellum (and pre-Thirteenth Amendment free Negroes???), "[b]ecause they were slaves they could not take advantage of the common law rules of allegiance to claim natural-born status, but, and this is speculation based on his conclusion, the former slaves would probably have liked to "claim" not only citizenship but also natural born citizenship, whether or not they would have considered themselves to be "...eligible to the Office of President."

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( OriginalBirtherDocument24.blogspot.com )

>> "Reading allegiance into the 14th Amendment would largely defeat the intent of its drafters, who wanted to prevent politicians from denying citizenship to those they considered insufficiently American."

[...snip]

And did you know this?

>> "The 14th Amendment's drafting history supports our reading.

>> "The Civil Rights Act of 1866, which inspired the amendment, guaranteed birthright citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. except those "subject to any foreign power" and "Indians not taxed."

>> "If the 14th Amendment's drafters had wanted "jurisdiction" to exclude children of aliens, they easily could have repeated the "foreign power" line."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

So, since "...they easily could have repeated" the reference to foreign powers, but they did not, then, ipso facto, dual U.S./foreign citizenship with allegiance to a "foreign power" is not trumped by, and is equal to, allegiance to ONLY the U.S., whether the issue is birthright citizenship for a child or for POTUS eligibility.

See how easy it is to think like a new meaning neo-birther?

An Article II Section 1 clause 5 "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birther believes the 2000s theory, the 2000s myth that birth on U.S. soil to only one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient to make a person a singular U.S. citizen (aka a "natural born Citizen") and "...eligible to the Office of President."

A Fourteenth Amendment "citizen" new meaning neo-birther believes the 2000s theory and myth that birth on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents was incorporated retroactively by the Supreme Court into the original genesis original intent meaning of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, because, since the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Court said that a child born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents is, ipso facto, a U.S. citizen even though the child derived U.S. citizen by Supreme Court fiat and did not derive U.S. citizenship from the foreign citizenship parents, then THAT amendment of the Fourteenth Amendment by Supreme Court fiat is the law of the land.

Neat and simple, huh?

Now we know, because the LA Times said so, that the Supreme Court ipso facto, trumps the Congress and the Constitution.

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the UnionOriginalBirtherDocument24.blogspot.com )

Professor Robert Natelson's thesis that the former slaves and their freed descendants were aliens or foreigners is wrong. The slaves and their freed descendants were not viewed as aliens or foreigners. If they were so viewed, then the Civil Rights Act of 1866 could not have made them citizens of the United States, for the children of former slaves, born in the United States to aliens, would have been born "subject to a foreign power" and therefore disqualified for citizenship under the Act. On the contrary, it was because they had for generations lost any allegiance to any foreign power and therefore not aliens or foreigners that the Act made them citizens of the United States.

So, Natelson is not only wrong on his definition of a natural born citizen (he erroneously claims that its definition came from the colonial English common law rather than from the law of nations), but also on his point that the Fourteenth Amendment had to include as citizens of the United States children born in the United States to alien parents because as he claims the slaves and their freed descendants, who were the Amendment's primary citizenship object, were aliens or foreigners.

THE STATUS of being a natural-born citizen attaches at birth by virtue of parentage.

***

In the Japanese Bushido, loyalty is the most important and often emphasized virtue, ahead of righteousness, courage, benevolence, respect, sincerity and honor.

Josiah Royce, in his “The Philosophy of Loyalty,” maintains that loyalty is “the heart of all the virtues, the central duty amongst all the duties.”

Utmost premium is accorded to loyalty. On the other hand, appropriate sanctions are imposed on acts of disloyalty: Traitors now suffer life imprisonment while previously, capital punishment was imposed on them; philandering husbands and adulterous wives are penalized; disloyal members are expelled; deserters are condemned; and there was a time turncoatism was proscribed, and the revival of this sanction may be warranted to stop partisan adventurism.

Although loyalty to the republic is not one of the enumerated minimum legal qualifications for the position of president, it permeates and is ascendant to all qualifications. It is said that loyalty is “an essential ingredient in any civilized and humane system of morals.”

Natural born citizenship status is not held in perpetuity. For example, Kahane v. Shultz, 653 F. Supp. 1486 - 1987 - ‎Dist. Court, ED New York. Kahane became an American citizen by virtue of his birth in New York City on August 1, 1932. He took up permanent residence in Israel in September 1971 and, in December 1972, he became a citizen of Israel by operation of that country's Law of Return.

Kahane founded the Kach Party and has run at the head of its ticket in parliamentary elections. Kach received sufficient votes to seat one candidate and Kahane took that seat on August 13, 1984. A Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the United States ("CLN") with regard to Kahane was issued on December 18, 1984, 8 U.S.C. § 1501, and the CLN was approved on October 2, 1985.

The parties stipulated Kahane had committed an expatriating act, because he accepted a seat in the parliament of a foreign state, the Israeli Knesset. See 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(4)(A). The parties stipulated that Kahane performed the expatriating act voluntarily, as required by Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129, 133, 78 S.Ct. 612, 615, 2 L.Ed.2d 659 (1958). The parties disagreed on whether Kahane's voluntary, expatriating act was intentional.

Kahane administratively appealed and then filed suit in the District Court. The court granted Kahane's motion for summary judgment to retain his US citizenship because he did not intend to relinquish his US citizenship.

Before the Schneider v Rusk decision, 1964, and after the Perkins v. Elg decision, 1934, the State Department's position was that a native born, dual citizen was not natural born citizen while living abroad. A careful read of Perkins v. Elg indicates Elg was a natural born citizen "in the United States" and not "of the United States." The Schneider v. Rusk decision opined the all three branches of US federal government are not authorized to opine on the term natural born citizen or decide who is a natural born citizen. The court opined Congress is not constitutionally authorized to enlarge or abridge the citizenship rights of a US citizen. Further, the constitutional authority of SCOTUS and Congress are coextensive. The State Department interpreted the lack of constitutional authority to define the term natural born citizen to apply to the Executive Branch as well as the Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch since 1964.

The term natural born citizen is fluid based on circumstance because the People are sovereign and members of the sovereign cannot forfeit their citizenship without the approval. Kahane did not approve of a CLN being issued to him while he was living in Israel and a member of their Parliament. The Founders would have agreed Kahane was a US citizen, but would not have wanted him to eligible to be President while living as a citizen of Israel and working as a member of their Parliament.

Art.VI, clause 2 says:“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…”

That tells us:1. Only THREE things are eligible to comprise the “supreme Law of the Land”: The Constitution, Acts of Congress, and Treaties. Supreme Court opinions are not included! Supreme Court opinions aren’t even “law” [contrary to what lawyers were told in law school] – they are merely opinions on the law suits or proceedings before the court.

2. Furthermore, Acts of Congress must be made pursuant to Authority granted to Congress by the Constitution before they qualify as part of the “supreme Law”. If Acts of Congress are not authorized by the Constitution, the acts are mere usurpations and must be treated as such. See: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/nullification-smacking-down-those-who-smack-down-the-constitution/

3. Treaties must likewise be made under the Authority of the United States before they qualify as part of the “supreme Law”. From where do the President and the Senate obtain their Authority? From the Constitution. The Constitution must specifically authorize the national government to act in an area before they may lawfully make a treaty addressing the object. The national government may not circumvent the limitations imposed by the enumerated powers to do by treaty what they may not lawfully do pursuant to the enumerated powers. E.g., our Constitution does not delegate to the national government authority to restrict our arms, ammunition, regulate firearms dealers, do background checks, etc. The national government may not lawfully circumvent this restriction by means of a treaty wherein the signatory governments agree to disarm their Citizens or Subjects. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/treaty-making-powers-of-the-united-states/

The Supreme Court’s opinion in the homosexual marriage cases was a grotesque usurpation of powers not delegated. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/searching-for-marriage-in-the-fourteenth-amendment/

And the opinion of these FIVE (5) morally degenerate lawyers is not “law” in any sense of the word. Only Congress is authorized to make “law” (Art. I, Sec. 1).

[Unquote].

Now in the 14th Amendment, we have a codification amended INTO the Constitution which those who did so demanded that there be NO dual nationalities and NO dual allegiances, and that both PARENTS be United States Citizens as a bare minimum standard. The Courts and Congress USURP the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, the Constitution of the United States, when they claim the ability to authorize anything less constitutes a 14th Amendment citizen, let alone the highest standard of a United States Natural Born Citizen, which codified may never be any less than born to 2 United States Citizen Parents, with NO other nationality allegiance at birth, and born on the soil. The Constitution trumps Sven's fluid brain.

It is a common misconception that SCOTUS opinion is the final word on the Supreme Law of the Land. The People are sovereign and SCOTUS is a servant of the sovereign restrained by the US Constitution. SCOTUS opinion is authoritative until the People withdraw their consent for SCOTUS to have an opinion. The people withdraw their consent for SCOTUS to have an opinion when an ineligible President is sworn into office.

The Declaration of Independence proclaimed the People are endowed by the Creator with unalienable rights. These rights include the right to withdraw consent to be governed by any government, not just the British government. The People do not formalize a declaration of independence and engage in war to withdraw consent to be governed by the US federal government. The People withdraw consent to be governed by the US federal government through the election of an ineligible President to be sworn into office in violation of Article II. Pursuant to Article VI, US federal officers are sworn to support the US Constitution. The sovereign is immune from lawsuit for conspiring to violate Article II after they have been endowed with unalienable rights by the Creator. The sovereign cannot be enjoined by its servants to prevent violence against the Constitution. The servants cannot ignore a violation of Article II by a sitting President installed into office by the will of the majority at the ballot box.

14th Amendment -

As a member of the sovereign, a native born US citizen may have dual allegiance at birth. Also, a native born US citizen may naturalize in a foreign state to obtain dual allegiance. The servants of the People are powerless to stop them. See Kahane v. Shultz, 653 F. Supp. 1486 - 1987 - ‎Dist. Court, ED New York. Edward Betancourt, a 40 plus year career, civil servant at the US State Department, initiated the attack on Kahane to affirm precedent set in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. 738 (1824). The servants of the People are not constitutionally authorized to enlarge or abridge the rights of US citizenship without the consent of the citizen.

John Jay, a diplomat with experience dealing with foreign powers and the thoughts and concerns of those foreign powers, suggested that only a natural born citizen could be eligible to be President. Kahane is a good example of a US citizen Jay was worried about. Kahane, a native born US citizen naturalized in a foreign state. After years of dedicated work, Kahane was elected as a member of the Israeli Parliament. Kahane admitted his dual nationality was hypocritical, but he refused to consent to relinquishment of his US citizenship. Kahane is a native born US citizen and not eligible to be President of United States because he is not a natural born citizen while residing in Israel.

A natural born citizen "by" birth is perpetualvs.A hybrid “natural born citizen” grafted into the citizenship host

Mario,

I seems to me that singular U.S. citizenship for a "by" birth "natural born Citizen" is perpetual too, unless "singular" U.S. citizenship is renounced, at which time the "singular" natural born citizen status is negatively affected and is, by statute, replaced perpetually by "dual" U.S./foreign citizenship, which would prohibit POTUS eligibility for the person who would later aspire to the presidency of the United States.

The result is a hybrid grafted into the host, a “natural born Citizen” with dual U.S./foreign citizenship which forever negates the original genesis of a singular U.S. citizen, aka a U.S. natural born citizen.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In his comment on September 9, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Sven makes an excellent point with his first sentence, "Natural born citizenship status is not held in perpetuity."

It is an excellent opportunity to clarify for Democratic Party, Republican Party, Independent Party, Conservative Party, Anarchy Party (in the "new thought" nascent stage of development) "nbC" new meaning neo-birthers about John Jay's original genesis original intent for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen": ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, ONLY by birth on U.S. soil, and ONLY an original genesis "by" birth to two U.S. citizen married parents.

From Wikipedia, an accurate source for historical facts, if not for opinion":>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Kahane

>> "Meir David Kahane (Hebrew: הרב מאיר דוד כהנא‎) (/kəˈhɑːnə/; August 1, 1932 – November 5, 1990) was an American-Israeli rabbi, ultra-Zionist political figure, teacher and writer, whose work became either the direct or indirect foundation of most modern Jewish militant and far right-wing political groups.[1] He was an ordained Orthodox rabbi and later served as a member of the Israeli Knesset.[2]"

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

It seems to me that, while, as I wrote above, "Singular U.S. citizenship for a "by" birth "natural born Citizen" is perpetual too, unless it is renounced," when the "singular" aspect of U.S. citizenship is renounced, then the essence of what makes a "natural born Citizen" a U.S. natural born citizen, ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, is negated by statute concerning expatriation.

So, yes, as Sven wrote, "Natural born citizenship status is not held in perpetuity." Yes, and it seems to me, if a U.S. natural born citizen expatriates and then repatriates by statute, the U.S. "citizen" is now to be identified as having dual U.S./foreign citizenship and so is not "...eligible to the Office of President."

Yes, Kahane retained, by statute, his U.S. citizenship, but, since singular U.S. citizenship status as a "natural born Citizen" can ONLY be retained "by" birth and can't be retained by statute (expatriation and then repatriation), Kahane can't renounce his dual U.S./foreign citizenship, and so Kahane, if he had aspired to the U.S. presidency, he would not have been "...eligible to the Office of President" if he had not been assassinated.

Maybe this will help clarify the analysis of John Jay's original genesis original intent meaning of "born" (which he underlined in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington) by the Democratic Party Obamabirthers (Obots) and the Republican Party "bots," Cbots, Rbots, Jbots, etc., as well as any Independent Party "bots" and Conservative Party "bots" of the future.

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( OriginalBirtherDocument24.blogspot.com )

Sven writes: "The People withdraw consent to be governed by the US federal government through the election of an ineligible President to be sworn into office in violation of Article II.... The sovereign is immune from lawsuit for conspiring to violate Article II after they have been endowed with unalienable rights by the Creator. The sovereign cannot be enjoined by its servants to prevent violence against the Constitution."

You REALLY want to stick by these words? I just want to know before giving a polite but sharp legally correct rebuke.

I went to https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/09/06/the-truth-about-the-supremacy-clause/ and was drawn to the link about The Constitution is not a Suicide Pact and LOL'd. The Constitution is exactly a poison pill defense against foreign encroachment. I wrote about it at http://conventionforamerica.blogspot.com/2015/08/article-ii-of-us-constitution-is-poison.html

Sven directs that I should take words from his convention hotlink. He claims authorship to the statement that: "The U.S. Constitution is voided when an ineligible President assumes the highest office in the land...." "After installing an ineligible President, the People must renew the constitutional republic with an improved national governing document ratified through a national referendum."

Two things he assets: 1) Obama has voided the Constitution of the United States, and there is therefore NO GOVERNMENT of any legal authority in the United States, and therefore there is NO JUDICIAL AUTHORITY to enforce any law because the Judiciary receives its powers from the Constitution, and these powers are delegated to the States which no longer have that Constitution delegated authority. Therefore, Obama has voided all rights to have law enforcement and criminal prosecution of anyone. So is claim by extension. 2) In order to have laws again, the people must magically come up with a New Constitution by "national referendum" or a "popular vote" which will allow mass fraud, illegals, and what have you?

Sven, if, as you say, the U.S. Constitution is VOIDED, then there are no laws in effect, there is only anarchy. The Judicial Courts derive their powers from the authority given them by the Constitution, a contract between WE THE PEOPLE and The States and the Federal Government. But if that contract no longer exists....? There are NO MORE legal hindrances, because as you say, the Constitution is VOIDED and until a new document is in place by the people YOU SAY there is no more legal basis for any law to protect them. If the Constitution is VOID, so in the absence of a National Government and a localized filling of that power vacuum, is there the lack of authority to assert the observance of Common Law, Maritime Laws and the Law of Nations. Why? Because until States or lesser divisions themselves formally assert either singular or collective sovereignty in and of themselves, they have no authority to even call themselves governmental powers such as STATES OF A NATION THAT, as you by a dissolving of the Constitution demand, NO LONGER EXISTS. Foudroyant! What osmotic vacuity. (to be continued)

For those interested, in legal citations which would be used in argument to counter Sven's anarchy theory that Congress can automatically dissolve the U.S. Constitution by normal means of ignoring a text such as the Natural Born Citizen Clause and installing a usurper, and that somehow "poof" dissolves the Constitution, perhaps they should first read up on Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 (1803) @ 177

and take note also of:

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) @594Justice Frankfurter stated:"The accretion of dangerous power does not come in a day. It does come, however slowly, from the generative force of unchecked disregard of the restrictions that fence in even the most disinterested assertion of authority."

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) @ 272 "It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution."

State of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) @432“ Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution...."

U.S. Constitution Art. I, 8, par. 18. The Congress is not permitted to abdicate … the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested.

Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) @ 25 "Congress and the President, like the courts, possess no power not derived from the Constitution."

Clinton v. City of New York 524 U.S. 417 (1998) @ 451-452“It is no answer, of course, to say that Congress surrendered its authority by its own hand … The Constitution is a compact enduring for more than our time, and one Congress cannot yield up its own powers, much less those of other Congresses to follow. See Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U. S. 868, 880 (1991); cf.Chadha, supra, at 942, n. 13. Abdication of responsibility is not part of the constitutional design.”

Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270 (1885) @ 290"...the maxim that the King can do no wrong has no place in our system of government, yet it is also true, in respect to the state itself, that whatever wrong is attempted in its name is imputable to its government, and not to the state, for, as it can speak and act only by law, whatever it does say and do must be lawful. That which therefore is unlawful because made so by the supreme law, the Constitution of the United States, is not the word or deed of the state, but is the mere wrong and trespass of those individual persons who falsely speak and act in its name. "

You are theorizing the servants of the People must support the US Constitution at all times, so that means the sovereign must support the US Constitution even in times of unhappiness. That is not a founding principle of the nation.

The Declaration of Independence, 1776, declared the People's right to abolish any government in times of unhappiness, not just the British government. "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." The Declaration of Independence, 1776. From the perspective of the British, the colonists were anarchists foolishly destroying a sound, representational form of government. From the perspective of the colonists, they were exercising their unalienable rights granted to them by the Creator.

The Congress didn't install an ineligible President to void the US Constitution they are sworn to support. The People and the electors of the Electoral College voted to install an ineligible President to achieve Obama's campaign promise of fundamental change. Congress completed their statutory duty to read the electoral votes aloud and count the votes. Congress didn't vote to install Obama. Congress voted to affirm the final vote count to make Obama the next President-elect. Congress complied with its constitutional mandate until Jan. 20, 2009.

The People installed an ineligible President to withdraw delegated authority to US government pursuant to the founding principles of this nation. The government officers who refuse to vacate their offices after notification of Obama's ineligibility are the anarchists.

Sven, FYI: In the Keyes v. Bowen 189 Cal.App.4th 647 (2010) @661, and Footnote 3. they state:“The federal court noted that title 3 United States Code section 15 sets forth a process for objecting to the President-elect... "mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. § 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and that the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify. Issues regarding qualifications for president are quintessentially suited to the foregoing process. Arguments concerning qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. The members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are well qualified to adjudicate any objections to ballots for allegedly unqualified candidates. “

"The counting of electoral votes in Congress and the process for objecting to them is detailed in section 15 of title 3 of the United States Code, which provides in relevant part: "[T]he votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision . . . ."

The Supreme Court has stated that a President receives his executive authority “either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself,” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) @585.

The Congress acting in behalf of the people can affirm or challenge the electoral votes and in both instances in 2008, neither Dick Cheney nor the President of the Senate in 2012 followed the rules and asked if there was any challenge to the count, at which point, the legal mechanism available to deny an illegal Presidency, some Appeals Court Justices will say, could alone deny an installation of someone ineligible for the Presidency. It would be within a 5 minute window, or something to that effect, and require one Representative and one Senator on the floor offering up in writing a unified challenge.

The Supreme Court demands we follow certain legal mechanisms and if you miss a pick or a link, the law does not unlock and allow you to advance, or words to this effect. Back in 2005, at Harvard, On 9-28-2005, at a Harvard University Q&A: US Supreme Court Justice Breyer described the Supreme Court’s role as “100 percent law interpretation” and “much more mechanical than you might think.” http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=508682

Sven, in addition, there is a claim of hindrances by the Court in 1982 to the point of encouraging corruption and deceit for those aspiring to illegally be POTUS:Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) @757 states that:"In addition, there are formal and informal checks on Presidential action that do not apply with equal force to other executive officials. The President is subjected to constant scrutiny by the press. Vigilant oversight by Congress also may serve to deter Presidential abuses of office, as well as to make credible the threat of impeachment.

…Other incentives to avoid misconduct may include a desire to earn reelection, the need to maintain prestige as an element of Presidential influence, and a President's traditional concern for his historical stature."

Earlier, you stated that by merely voting for an ineligible person into POTUS, the Constitution is voided. By the same token, if we extend your rules to State affirmations of illegal candidates, the State Constitutions are voided under your hypothesis also.

The California Election Code § 6906 by example, states that: the electors designated for the State of California “shall vote by ballot for that person for President and that person for Vice President of the United States, who are, respectively, the candidates of the political party which they represent...”

Electors “shall assemble at the State Capitol at 2 o'clock in the afternoon on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their election” (§ 6904)and “shall vote by ballot for that person for President and that person for Vice President of the United States, who are, respectively, the candidates of the political party which they represent....” (§ 6906.)

“The electors shall make separate lists of all persons voted for as President and of all persons voted for as Vice President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign, certify, seal, and transmit by mail to the seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.” (§ 6908.)

Taking the above, the Courts in California will repeatedly make the claim that Electors do NOT have an affirmative duty to discover whether any candidate for POTUS is a natural born citizen and, in fact, Electors (in the eyes of the Court, in California) are required by statute to vote for their party’s nominee...or words to this effect. It has been the same response in some half dozen states. Therefore, according to your rules, the States dissolve their Constitutions because they affirmed Obama. No...the reality is Obama is illegal, and according to Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) @ 180 and other citations, we may only void out that which is directly attributed to Obama as repugnant to the Constitution and as though it never was...hence, we can only void out January 20, 2009 and beyond "fruit of the poisonous tree" federal laws and regs. That's it, and nothing more.

Brianroy and Sven have an interesting discussion about the constitution, but, is there really a problem that needs to be resolved that is not protected by the line of succession?

Brianroy quoted what Sven wrote on his blog (see the last two sentences of the last paragraph):>> http://conventionforamerica.blogspot.com/2015/08/article-ii-of-us-constitution-is-poison.html

>> "The U.S. Constitution is voided when an ineligible President assumes the highest office in the land to prevent the usurper from inheriting a functioning constitutional republic.

>> "After installing an ineligible President, the People must renew the constitutional republic with an improved national governing document ratified through a national referendum."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

While Brianroy has many excellent points, it seems to me that the best rebuttal and refutation of Sven's assertion (the constitution is voided if the electorate selects an illegal POTUS) is that Sven has not adduced the line of succession to the U.S. presidency that implicitly protects the Union against an unconstitutional usurper (on Wikipedia:>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession

>> "This is a list of the current presidential line of succession,[1] as specified by the United States Constitution and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947[2] as subsequently amended to include newly created cabinet offices.

>> "The succession follows the order of Vice President, Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the cabinet, which currently has fifteen members."

So, if the Vice President and the President Pro Tempore and the others in the line of succession do not contest the illegal president, is the U.S. Constitution still in effect or is it automatically voided, regardless of the line of succession?

It seems to me that the Article V authority of the legislatures of the "several states" to propose an amendment to rectify a constitution issue would also be voided if the Constitution were automatically voided by an illegal president.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

P.S.

On BirtherReport.com Pixel Patriot has a Emer de Vattel quote by Thomas Jefferson that is entitled VATTEL IS LAW, CITATION BY THOMAS JEFFERSON FOR VATTEL AS LAW, with the header, "Historic: Founding Father President Thomas Jefferson Cited Vattel In Handwritten Manuscript."

Prof. Rob Natelson is on a roll: "...opponents of birthright citizenship for children of aliens living here illegally" have a big flaw in their argument, that (this is my language) children can't acquire U.S. citizenship from illegal alien parents who do not have U.S. citizenship to bestow on their illegal alien children.

Arguing the Constitutional Case Against Birthright Citizenship for Children of IllegalsBy Rob Natelson

>> "In two prior postings (here and here), I listed flaws in the constitutional arguments of opponents of birthright citizenship for children of aliens living here illegally.

>> "For children to be American citizens by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, they must be born within American territory and they (or rather their parents) must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

>> "Those opposing birthright citizenship hurt their own case by basing it principally on the claim that visiting foreigners never qualify as “subject to the jurisdiction.”

[...snip]

>> "And I would try to square my case with precedent instead of arguing that precedent should be disregarded."

>> "I would develop my case on at least two fronts."

1- What did the state legislatures understand "subject to the jurisdiction" to mean?2- "...take advantage of the Supreme Court precedents instead opf trying to fight them."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario, maybe American Thinker could balance the conversation with your own contribution about how Article II Section 1 clause 5 and Section 1 clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment are thematically related; "born" in "natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of..." and "born" in "All persons born or naturalized...subject to the [U.S.] jurisdiction...are citizens...."

Prof. Natelson is not convincing in his conclusion because he is not persuasive in his expositions of Elk v. Wilkins and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

If the Constitution is voided upon a usurper president assuming that Office, then the people cannot protect themselves from that usurper by resorting to that very Constitution. I do not think that the Framers would have create such a scenario.

RE: my statement, "The U.S. Constitution is voided when an ineligible President assumes the highest office in the land to prevent the usurper from inheriting a functioning constitutional republic."

It is important to remember the People are sovereign and the servants are powerless to prevent the People from voting for an ineligible President to declare their independence from a government causing them unhappiness. The Electoral College serves as a check on the popular vote of the people. Article II prevents any person who profits from their service as US federal officers from being appointed by the various states as an elector. Art. II, Section I, Clause 2, "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector." Any person who has sworn an oath to support the Constitution, even in times of unhappiness, is not constitutionally authorized to interfere with the will of the People to install an ineligible President if they choose to do so. Repeatedly, the courts have ruled they lack jurisdiction to enjoin the electors from voting for an ineligible candidate or order an investigation into a candidate to determine eligibility. Again, this is more confirmation the will of the People cannot be prevented in times of unhappiness.

At the founding of this country, a captain of a ship would scuttle the ship before he allowed a pirate to overtake the ship and use the Crown's jewels against the Crown. Article II does not prevent the People from electing and installing an ineligible President. It prevents an ineligible President from using the treasure of the United States developed under the US Constitution and expending the blood of Americans to attack the enemies of a foreign power influencing the ineligible President. It is a founding principle of this nation that the People are sovereign and may separate from any government. US federal officers cannot ignore a violation of Article II to ensure America's treasure and the blood of Americans is not used by a President under the influence of a foreign power.

Ajtelles, I would make the point that your line of succession of Democrats asacceptable or in any way legal is de facto incorrect, is "fruit of the poisonous tree" as a result of Obama the usurper January 20, 2009 ff, illegal to assume succession status. As I understand it, there would have to be a process by which the Senate would have to nominate and vote in a new temporary President and Vice-President, disqualifying Biden and every Democrat who ever served in that usurpation from being a candidate for POTUS nomination and following the much the same as the Impeachment processes...or something to this effect.

The point is not the political party but the line of succession, so simply remove the party designation, as I did below. Also, it is not my line of succession, I copied it from Wikipedia, which says that the line of succession was "specified by the United States Constitution and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947[2] as subsequently amended...."( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession )

>> "This is a list of the current presidential line of succession,[1] as specified by the United States Constitution and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947[2] as subsequently amended to include newly created cabinet offices.

>> "The succession follows the order of Vice President, Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the cabinet, which currently has fifteen members."

1 Vice President of the United States2 Speaker of the House 3 President pro tempore of the Senate4 Secretary of State5 Secretary of the Treasury6 Secretary of Defense 7 Attorney General— Secretary of the Interior8 Secretary of Agriculture9 Secretary of Commerce 10 Secretary of Labor11 Secretary of Health and Human Services12 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development13 Secretary of Transportation14 Secretary of Energy15 Secretary of Education16 Secretary of Veterans Affairs17 Secretary of Homeland Security

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Brianroy, on September 13, 2015 at 10:04 AM you wrote:

"...[Y]our line of succession of Democrats...legal is de facto incorrect. ... As I understand it, there would have to be a process by which the Senate would have to nominate and vote in a new temporary President and Vice-President, disqualifying Biden and every Democrat who ever served in that usurpation from being a candidate for POTUS nomination and following the much the same as the Impeachment processes...."

Brianroy, why would anyone in the line of succession be disqualified? Vice President Biden, a Democrat, be disqualified? Why would the third in the line of succession, the Speaker of the House, Rep. John Boehner, a Republican, or President pro tempore of the Senate, Sen. Orin Hatch, a Republican, be disqualified?

The constitution does not contain within it the method of its demise, but it does contain Article V, an article designed to protect the integrity of the entire Constitution, including the line of succession, that remains valid even if the constitution is violated, either by accident or willfully, by a usurper president, senator, representative, or state nullification or secession. Article V would be invalidated if, for some obscure reason, the entire Constitution is voided because of the illegal activity of an officer, from the chief executive on down, from the Vice President, the members of the cabinet, and on down to the Secretary of Homeland Security.

In his first inaugural address in 1861 President Abraham Lincoln said something in reference to the secession movement that started a few days after he won the general election as the first president who was a member of the new Republican Party, the second person to attempt election as a Republican, and the first Republican to succeed. Aspects of the speech can be applied (see my comments in brackets []) to those who assert that the entire constitution can be nullified and voided by the actions of one person in the presidential line of succession.

See part of his first inaugural speech at ( OriginalBirtherDocument14.blogspot.com ), or at Bartleby.com.

>> "… and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself."

“It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration [April 30, 1789] of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.

“I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

“Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?”

~ ~ ~One party to a contract mayviolate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?~ ~ ~

“Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself.

The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

“But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States [or a usurper president] be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

“It follows from these views that no State[or a usurper president] upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

“I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken[we can add that the line of succession is also unbroken], and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws[including the constitution and the line of succession] of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself[with Article V authority that is not voided.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Article V authority is not void because the U.S. Constitution is not void if a usurper president is chosen by the Electoral College contrary to its fiduciary duty on behalf of We the People. We the People are the singular sovereign, not the Constitution of the sovereign, or the Electoral College authorized by the Constitution. We the People are not suicidal and the U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact.

We the People are the singular sovereign, not the Constitution, not the Electoral College set up by the authority of the Constitution, and not the executive that is chosen by the Electoral College. The U.S. Constitution can NOT be made void by a usurper president for the same reason that the constitution will NOT be made void by We the People even if a usurper succeeds in the effort to "OCCUPY" the oval office again. We the People are not suicidal (Article V is proof of that), and the U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact.

~ ~ ~

One party to a contract mayviolate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

~ ~ ~

Thank you President Abraham Lincoln. Your 1861 words about the secession of eleven states from the Federal Union were prescient and are a guiding light in the 21st century.

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( OriginalBirtherDocument24.blogspot.com )

When obtaining a post or office is accomplished by FRAUD or is the derivative of a FRAUD, it constitutes a disqualification, as legally, they would not be able to prove that in a Republican Administration, Biden or any other Dem would have obtained their position in the first place. Under normal condition, what officer moves up in what order is not in dispute...but in a status of felony fraud producing individuals to possess an office, we do not allow this, be it under RICO and other citations, or what have you regarding U.S. Code. These fruit of the poisonous tree positions, AS A CONSEQUENCE of the Fraud and Impostor and unconstitutional Obama are uncontestedly:

1 Vice President of the United States Joe Biden (D)4 Secretary of State John Kerry (D)5 Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew (D)6 Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter (D)7 Attorney General Loretta Lynch (D)— Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell (D)[a]8 Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack (D)9 Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker (D) (Whom I have met and talked to. She is a Communist Socialist who in 2005 to me, mistaking my use of "fellow traveler" to her, described the goal to install an oligarchy the same as outlined in the Tulane Executive Summary).10 Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez (D)11 Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Mathews Burwell (D)12 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julián Castro (D)13 Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx (D)14 Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz (D)15 Secretary of Education Arne Duncan (D)

And it could be argued that 2 Speaker of the House John Boehner (R)3 President pro tempore of the Senate Orrin Hatch (R)

might also hold positions as a result only a fruit of being a political dynamic because of Barack Obama being illegally appointed. The whole system is in such turmoil, the United States Supreme Court seeing this, refuses to even get involved in resolving the Constitutional dilemma they have been petitioned to help resolve. It would take more than just a Scalia to resolve this, and we have no legal mind any where near the caliber of the late Robert Bork, who could have been one of the great chief justices, to even attempt to resolve this. But even Scalia is compromised in his Conservatism often times by his personal friendship with Bader-Ginsburg. Then we have the hidden agendas the same way Congress is not controlled just by lobbyists and Federal Reserve owning banks, but by Freemason and various other alien allegiance memberships and obligations. From 1941 to 1971, the Court was majority Freemasons who sabotaged the Court and this nation in so many ways, including removing prayer and the bible (the early textbook of schools in this nation) from schools. Now, we have a Communist-Socialist to heavy Court, including two illegals to even be there (Kagan and Sotomayor), who along with Bader-Ginsburg, have a homosexualizing of America activism agenda and a hatred of the Constitution (Bader-Ginsburg being on record she wants to junk the U.S. Constitution for one like South Africa's).

to be able to run for POTUS:http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-flip-flops-canada-born-ted-cruzs/story?id=33637878

Ted's wife Heidi served on a Board of the Council on Foreign Relations that was specifically geared to come up with ideas of how to transition America from a sovereign Republic, to a North America Region 1 of what will be a "used to be Canada, United States, Mexico" section of the world.http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102

She advocates the US - Canada - Mexico as merging into Region 1 of a One World Government, which is seeks to enable us to pay a Global Tax on top of local, Stat, and Federal Taxes, beginning with CARBON TAXATION. And if you have followed the Agenda 21 controll freaks, they believe that simply by breathing, you should be taxed or removed and your wealth redistributed for that, as they call any Carbon Dioxide you breath the same as a Carbon Pollutant. In effect, the kind of VP Donald Trump is apparently already grooming, is an a Canadian Birth Citizen and National (until May of 2014) who is a alien born and alien fathered globalist subversive whose wife has treasonous CFR anti-U.S. Constitution allegiances and agendas.

In Regard to Region 1 of a 10 Region World Government, you can see it used in Agenda 21 Carbon Tax "G-Cube" Models and think tank papers at:http://www.lowyinstitute.org/files/pubfiles/McKibbin_and_Wilcoxen%2C_The_economic_and_environmental_effects.pdf

For Trump to invite Al Qaeda / ISIS "refugees" here to America on September 5th, and then to join Ted Cruz and seek to vet his illegal status as legal, means Trump is just another lousy fake, a traitor to the Constitution of the United States, and a money-grubbing power-hungry opportunist who should be exposed for the nefarious anti-Constitutionalist political both major parties are just one party "insider" that he really is. Were George Washington or any of the other founders around, they would literally whip or tar and feather certain people in disgust. In our day, all we can do is expose the illegal to run frauds like Cruz and Jindal and Rubio, and the other kind of frauds like Trump and anyone who vets Cruz and Jindal and Rubio, and inform the public...and it seems, little else. Congress in the 1790s had the Bible for a textbook, because our Republican Government was designed for a moral people. Only the truly inwardly corrupt and immoral seek to destroy the Constitution that we have, so by this measure, "by their fruits shall ye know them." We need a July 4, 1776 form of liberation away from corruption while protecting, preserving, and defending the Constitution of the United States.

In Prof. Rob Natelson's third article at AmericanThinker.com, he says that he does not have a dog in this hunt, but he woould counsel the opponents of birthright citizenship to go with precedent and to not disregard precedent.

Arguing the Constitutional Case Against Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegals

>> "I do not have a dog in this hunt. >> But if I were legal counsel for opponents of birthright citizenship, >> I would take their legal argument in an entirely different direction. And >> I would try to square my case with precedent instead of arguing that precedent should be disregarded."

>> "In two prior postings (here and here), I listed flaws in the constitutional arguments of opponents of birthright citizenship for children of aliens living here illegally.

>> "For children to be American citizens by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, they must be born within American territory and they (or rather their parents) must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Those opposing birthright citizenship hurt their own case by basing it principally on the claim that visiting foreigners never qualify as “subject to the jurisdiction.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Well, I'm not a lawyer, so I can't offer legal counsel to "opponents of birthright citizenship" like Natelson is doing, but I can propose more clarity in framing the argument in a way that Natelson can not because his point is precedent, but what he means is not really as clear as it could be.

This is what I mean.

1- Who is an proponent of automatic birthright citizenship? I am.2- Who is a opponent of automatic birthright citizenship? I am.

It seems that "automatic birthright citizenship" ("abc") can mean two different things, "by" birth to U.S. citizen parents and also "at" birth to non-U.S. citizenship parents, and confusion arises because "abc" is usually referenced as meaning primarily "at" birth citizenship for the children born on U.S. soil to alien parents, legal and illegal.

1- I support U.S. automatic birthright citizenship "by" birth ONLY for children born on U.S. soil to U.S. citizen parents, either born to two U.S. citizen married parents, or born to one U.S. citizen parent, whether that U.S. citizen parent is married to the non-U.S. citizen parent or not married.

2a- I oppose U.S. automatic birthright citizenship "at" birth for children born on U.S. soil to legal alien parents.

Some people say that the child born on U.S. soil to legal alien parents is an automatic citizen "at" birth because the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark court implicitly said that both "at" birth and "by" birth was the original intent of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, and what it "really" meant in 1868, even though the child of alien parents could NOT be an automatic citizen "by" birth because the legal alien parents were, well, still aliens who did not have U.S. citizenship to pass on to the child "by" birth.

2b- I oppose U.S. automatic birthright citizenship "at" birth for children born on U.S. soil to illegal alien parents.

Some people manage to "break and enter" our property (cross our borders) to "plop and drop" their "anchor baby" after they are told that the illegal alien child is an automatic citizen "at" birth, not knowing that it was Justice Brennan who said in a note that, according to the 1898 Wong court, the "by" birth children of illegal alien parents should not be treated differently than the "by" birth children of legal alien parents.

Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Aliens: An Irrational Public Policy

by Lino A. GragliaTexas Review of Law and Politics Vol. 14>> http://www.trolp.org/main_pgs/issues/v14n1/Graglia.pdf

[...snip]

>> " Although there is no Supreme Court decision on the issue of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens, it is referred to in the dicta in a few cases."

[...snip]

>> "In a footnote, Justice Brennan interpreted Wong Kim Ark(64) as holding that “no plausible distinction . . . can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”(65)

"That statement cannot settle the matter, however, because it is not only a pure dictum—a gratuitous statement unnecessary to the decision of the case—but also based on the mistaken premise that Wong Kim Ark decided the case of illegal aliens.(66)"

ArtU.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( OriginalBirtherDocument24.blogspot.com )

I think the best way to look at the question of what is birthright citizenship is to say that there are two types, one that exists by virtue of natural right and one that exists by virtue of positive law. David Ramsay explained that the former belongs only to the children born in the country to citizens parents since July 4, 1776. In the Constitution, the Framers called these persons "natural born citizens." The latter exists under the naturalization powers that the Framers gave to Congress in the Constitution and under an amendment to the Constitution which is the Fourteenth Amendment. No branch of our government has the power to alter the meaning of a natural born citizen. Only a duly ratified constitutional amendment can do that. On the other hand, government can always change the conditions precedent for gaining (e.g., the Fourteenth Amendment give Congress the power to enforce birthright citizenship by appropriate legislation and Congress in its naturalization Acts, when it has even given such a right at all, has over the years required that one or both parents of children born to them out of the United States satisfy a U.S. residency or physical presence requirement) and conditions subsequent for maintaining (e.g., Congressional naturalization Acts have over the years provided various conditions for the retention of citizenship gained by one born out of the United States) birthright citizenship that exists as a creature of positive law.

Concerning, Robert Natelson, he tries too hard and keeps failing. He has the nerve to make this statement: "I would try to square my case with precedent instead of arguing that precedent should be disregarded." Wow! He is the one who concerning the definition of a natural born citizen is presenting an argument that disregards both historical and legal precedent. I've cited and discussed that precedent over the years in my briefs to the courts and on this blog and elsewhere and the best he can do is say that in defining a natural born citizen, we adopted the allegiance of the English common law to define the clause, a position which is treason to and fraud upon the Constitution. There is simply no evidence of such an outlandish statement and he advances it. Now he also presents himself as a friend offering a helping hand to those who opposed birthright citizenship. Natelson needs to be exposed for his treason and fraud on the Constitution which he sneaks into his innocent articles on defining the Fourteenth Amendment.

Mario, it seems that I did not include part #2 in my comment yesterday, so here it is, after the "First, dittos" comment.

First, dittos to your first sentence today, September 14, 2015 at 8:25 AM:

>> "I think the best way to look at the question of what is birthright citizenship is to say that there are two types,

>> one that exists by virtue of natural right and >> one that exists by virtue of positive law."

Your "two types" is another way of saying what I write below in part #2: "by" birth ("natural right") and "at" birth ("positive law").

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

First, from part #1 yesterday:

This is what I mean.

1- Who is a proponent of automatic birthright citizenship? I am.2- Who is an opponent of automatic birthright citizenship? I am.

It seems that "automatic birthright citizenship" ("abc") can mean two different things, "by" birth to U.S. citizen parents and also "at" birth to non-U.S. citizenship parents, and confusion arises because "abc" is usually referenced as meaning primarily "at" birth citizenship for the children born on U.S. soil to alien parents, legal and illegal.

This is part #2 -

1- I support U.S. automatic birthright citizenship "by" birth ONLY for children born on U.S. soil to U.S. citizen parents, either born to two U.S. citizen married parents, or born to one U.S. citizen parent, whether that U.S. citizen parent is married to the non-U.S. citizen parent or not married.

2a- I oppose U.S. automatic birthright citizenship "at" birth for children born on U.S. soil to legal alien parents.

Some people say that the child born on U.S. soil to legal alien parents is an automatic citizen "at" birth because the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark court implicitly said that both "at" birth and "by" birth was the original intent of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, and what it "really" meant in 1868, even though the child of alien parents could NOT be an automatic citizen "by" birth because the legal alien parents were, well, still aliens who did not have U.S. citizenship to pass on to the child "by" birth.

2b- I oppose U.S. automatic birthright citizenship "at" birth for children born on U.S. soil to illegal alien parents.

Some people manage to "break and enter" our property (cross our borders) to "plop and drop" their "anchor baby" after they are told that the illegal alien child is an automatic citizen "at" birth, not knowing that it was Justice Brennan who said in a note that, according to the 1898 Wong court, the "by" birth children of illegal alien parents should not be treated differently than the "by" birth children of legal alien parents.

Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Aliens: An Irrational Public Policyby Lino A. GragliaTexas Review of Law and Politics Vol. 14>> http://www.trolp.org/main_pgs/issues/v14n1/Graglia.pdf

[...snip]

>> " Although there is no Supreme Court decision on the issue of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens, it is referred to in the dicta in a few cases."

[...snip]

>> "In a footnote, Justice Brennan interpreted Wong Kim Ark(64) as holding that “no plausible distinction . . . can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”(65)

"That statement cannot settle the matter, however, because it is not only a pure dictum—a gratuitous statement unnecessary to the decision of the case—but also based on the mistaken premise that Wong Kim Ark decided the case of illegal aliens.(66)"

I just left this comment for Paul Finkelman, who just published, "Citizenship and the Constitution: A Legal History Lesson for Our Times," at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-finkelman/citizenship-and-the-const_b_8137670.html .

Mr. Finkelman, you state that Wong Kim Ark held that "Mr. Wong was a natural born citizen of the United States because he was born in the United States, even though his parents were aliens and could never become citizens." This is incorrect.

The Framers were very careful to distinguish in the Constitution between a natural born citizen and a citizen of the United States, stating in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 that a "Citizen of the United States" was eligible to be President, provided that person was a citizen by the time of the adoption of the Constitution. For those born after the adoption, only a natural born citizen was so eligible. Hence, we can see that there is a critical constitutional distinction between a natural born citizen and a citizen of the United States when it comes to who is eligible for the Office of President.

Both Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) observed that the Constitution, which then already included the Fourteenth Amendment, did not define a natural born citizen. What they both also said was that the Amendment defined a citizen of the United States. Minor defined a natural born citizen under what it said was the common law with which the Framers were familiar, stating that it was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens. It added that under that common law, all the rest of the people were "alien or foreigners," who could be naturalized under Acts of Congress. Minor also added that there were doubts whether a child born within the jurisdiction to alien parents was a citizen of the United States under the Amendment.

The Minor Fourteenth Amendment doubts were resolved by Wong Kim Ark which held that a child born in the United States to domiciled and permanent resident alien parents who were neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders was a citizen of the United States from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. It did not hold that such a child was a natural born citizen under the applicable common law identified by Minor.

In short, Minor is the case to look to for the definition of a natural born citizen. Wong Kim Ark is the case to look to for learning who is included as a citizen of the United States at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. This means that Wong Kim Ark did not define a natural born citizen any differently than how Minor defined one which to this day remains a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens.

So, if you want to talk about the Fourteenth Amendment, do so. But do not conflate, confound, and confuse a Fourteenth Amendment citizen at birth with an Article II natural born citizen.

It looks like, after posting one comment, either the author of the article, Paul Finkelman, or Huffington Post has censored your comment. Since the 15th when you posted your comment here on your blog, I've been checking to see if your comment was published at the Huffpo, and your comment is still not posted, even though there has been an update, "Posted: 09/15/2015 4:47 pm EDT - Updated: 09/17/2015 8:59 am EDT".

So, your comment, which censured Finkelman for an ill informed comment like this, "The Founders assumed that people born in the United States were citizens even if their parents were aliens," has been censored by Finkelman.

Just for fun, for those who do not have a dictionary handy, here is the American Heritage Dictionary definitions of "censor" and "censure."

censor n.

1. One authorized to examine books, films, or other material and suppress what is considered objectionable.

2. An official who examines personal mail and official dispatches to remove information considered secret or a security risk.

3. One that condemns or censures.

censure n.

1. An expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism.2. An official rebuke, such as one by a legislature to a member.

So, Mario, it looks like your censure of Finkelman's article has been officially censured in return by the censor.

What a joke the Huffpo is for censoring your common sense comment that censured Finkelman's conclusion about the Fourteenth Amendment and Article II.

Here is an excerpt from an article written by Ambassador Jaime S. Bautista regarding whether Philippine Senator Grace Poe is a natural born citizen of the Philippines:

The 1987 Philippine Constitution, like the previous 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, observes the principle of jus sanguinis and distinguishes between natural born citizens (born of Filipino parents) and naturalized citizens. The Philippine Constitutions do not contain any provision expressly granting Filipino citizenship to foundlings, or those whose parents are unknown.

In the case of Senator Grace Poe before the Senate Electoral Tribunal, the media reported that the Petitioner conceded that Senator Poe was a Filipino citizen but questioned whether she is a natural born citizen. A suggestion was made that she is a Filipino citizen by virtue of customary international law but not a natural born citizen because she is not a Filipino by blood (jus sanguinis) but by operation of law (naturalization). On the other hand, as there is no customary international law automatically granting nationality to foundlings, the question arises whether recognition that Senator Poe is a Filipino citizen would imply that she is a Filipino citizen by blood, not having been naturalized. In the end, the issue of whether Senator Poe is a natural born citizen of the Philippines will probably be decided by DNA tests.

Mr. Bautista is Professor-of-Law, Ateneo de Manila University and Pre-Bar Reviewer on International Law, Philippine Christian University. It sure looks like Mr. Bautista understands how to define a natural born citizen, especially if he concludes that what is needed in order to be a natural born citizen is birth in the country to two citizen parents.

Presidential contender, Senator Ted Cruz, continues to spread misinformation regarding whether he is an Article II natural born citizen. Recently we have this from New Hampshire:

Cruz's own origins came under question from a member of the audience, who asked about the constitutional requirement that presidents be natural born citizens. Cruz explained that while he was born in Calgary, Alberta, he was a US citizen because he was born to an American mother. "I have never breathed a breath of air," he said, "when I wasn't an American citizen.”

Notice that Cruz does not define a natural born citizen and state that he is one. Rather, he relies upon bbreathing fresh air. But Breathing fresh air, while is sounds wonderful, is not the standard to be met for one to be an Article II natural born citizen. Rather, the standard may be found in unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision of Minor v. Happersett (1875), where the Court defined a natural born citizen as follows:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

Minor, at 167.

Cruz was born in Canada, presumably to a U.S. citizen mother and non-U.S. citizen father. Cruz was not born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. He is therefore not a natural born citizen and is constitutionally ineligible to be elected President.

Sen. Cruz's "breath of air" comment is an interesting anecdotal reference and defense that deserves dictionary analysis. Instead of simply responding with my own anecdotal comment about original birther John Jay and his original genesis original intent for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington, for fun and for those who do not have a dictionary handy, first I will refer to two American Heritage Dictionary definitions of "anecdote" and "anecdotal."

anecdote n.1. A short account of an interesting or humorous event.2. Secret or hitherto undivulged particulars of history or biography.

anecdotal adj.1. Of, characterized by, or full of anecdotes.2. Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis.

Mario, as you wrote on October 4, 2015 at 4:58 PM about Cruz and Minor: “Cruz does not define a natural born citizen and state that he is one. Rather, he relies upon breathing fresh air. …,” and also “… Rather, the standard may be found in [the] unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision of Minor v. Happersett (1875), where the Court defined a natural born citizen as follows:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Mario, your use of the Cruz and Minor anecdotal evidence is pertinent to your consistent and accurate use of “rigorous or scientific analysis” when you adduce, to use only two examples, the actual holding of the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Court and the actual holding of the 1875 Minor v. Happersett Court, as supported by the quote below. Both Sen. Cruz and the Minor Court use anecdotal references to make their contradictory “natural born Citizen” points. Sen. Cruz uses “breathed...air” and the Minor Court uses “resort...elsewhere...common-law...nomenclature...framers...familiar...never doubted….”

Original birther John Jay is also anecdotal, and is just as valid, for anecdotal support to define an “nbC,” as is Sen. Cruz's “breathed...air” and the Minor Court's “resort...elsewhere...nomenclature...framers...familiar...never doubted….”

In my opinion, the Minor v. Happersett Court affirms John Jay's original genesis original intent for underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” that was eventually incorporated into Article II Section 1 clause 5 by the framers, but Sen. Cruz's anecdotal “breathed...air” reference does not follow Jay's “original genesis original intent” presuppositional foundation for being “born” a “citizen” with the “perquisite” of being uniquely“by birth” alone “...eligible to the Office of President.” The “perk” of being “by birth” an Article II “natural born Citizen” is presidential eligibility, a “perk” that is not available to an Article I Representative “citizen” or an Article I Senator “citizen.”

I'm all for the primary and foundational use of the “rigorous or scientific analysis” by adducing the actual holdings of the different Courts, and secondarily, as the Minor Court did in adducing an anecdotal “event,” of which the “framers...were familiar,” I'm for adducing analysis of historical events that support the “rigorous or scientific analysis” holdings of the Court, as the Minor v. Happersett Court did in this citizenship and voting case.

I never get a coherent “dual U.S./foreign citizenship” rebuttal and refutation when I bring original birther John Jay into the conversation, especially when I write that, according to the “nomenclature” with which Jay was familiar, Jay's “original genesis original intent” for underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” for POTUS eligibility was ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents ONLY married to each other BEFORE the birth of their child.

For some reason the “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers, Democratic, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, Progressive, Conservative, Anarchist (still in the nascent stage of “cell” division), NEVER have a coherent rebuttal to the anecdotal assertion that John Jay's original genesis original intent was ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents to be “...eligible to the Office of President.”

U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union( OriginalBirtherDocument24.blogspot.com )

Ted Cruz's argument that he is a natural born citizen because he never breathed air when he was not an American is pretty lame. Depending on when he was born during the history of our nation, there are plenty of times during which being born under the same birth circumstances as he claims for himself, he would not have been breathing any air as an American. Depending on when he was born, rather than breathing air as an American, he would have been breathing air as a British or Canadian subject (from his birth in the territory which today is called Canada), and Spanish or Cuban citizen (from being born to his Spanish or Cuban father). That surely does not sound like a natural born citizen to me.

Here is Bryan Gene Olson at Western Free Press expressing the biggest constitutional fraud being perpetuated by the Obots and their supporters (Jack Maskell included) with respect to Article II presidential eligibility:

"Outside of the Article II text itself, and John Jay's letter with 'born' underlined, the historic usages of 'natural-born citizen' were about who receives citizenship upon birth. . . . William Rawle in 1825 and Chancellor Sanford deciding Lynch v. Clarke in 1844 . . . did not deny the eligibility of foreign-born citizens from birth, nor distinguish the Article II term 'natural-born citizen' from citizenship granted upon birth."

~~~~~

Mr. Olson is pushing the Jack Maskell argument that all those who are citizens at birth, no matter where born, not matter to whom born, and no matter how the status is obtained, are natural born citizens. In its most basic element, this argument focuses on when someone became a citizen and gives no value to how it happened. Just on its face such an arguments is contrary to reason. Beyond the facial absurdity of the argument, I have already explained how this argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Being a natural born citizen is about both how and when one becomes a citizen. The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) informed us what the Framers' how, or means or mechanism, was for one to be a natural born citizen. It said it was birth in a country to parents who were its citizens. Minor explained that if one satisfied these conditions, one was a natural born citizen and therefore also ipso facto a citizen from the moment of birth. Indeed, given the Court's formulation, (1) birth in a country (2) to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth, are the necessary and sufficient conditions for being a natural born citizen.

Obots suppress how (the birth circumstances by which) one becomes a citizen and focus on when one becomes one, regardless of how it happened. They then argue that when one becomes a citizen proves how one becomes one which they claim is natural born. But when one becomes a citizen is only a necessary consequent of being a natural born citizen. As we can see from Minor, it is not a sufficient condition. The fraud is in Mr. Olson and his ilk denying the plain words of Minor, not telling us how the Framers defined a natural born citizen, and not telling us how the Framers' definition of the clause provided for who was to be recognized as being a citizen from birth. On the contrary, Mr. Olson pleads ignorance as to how the Framers defined the clause even though the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor told us how they defined one. So he wants us to believe without providing any evidence that the Framers would have accepted any person who is a citizen at birth, no matter where born, no matter to whom born, and not matter how the status may be obtained, as a natural born citizen without informing and proving under what circumstances the Framers accepted a person as a citizen from the moment of birth and what they called those types of citizens given those circumstances. What he does is take persons who past or current laws of whatever type have made citizens at birth and say that those citizens are natural born citizens, without providing any evidence that the Framers accepted such persons as natural born citizens. No, he just pleads ignorance and pushes his and Maskell's fallacy of affirming the consequent as the definition of a natural born citizen.

The logic of an Obot is not only fallacious, it’s malicious and their sarcasm always bellows Alinsky...

To assume the Framers equated “natural born Citizen” with “born citizen” and thus left the term open to the naturalization powers of Congress (of whom they only required to be citizens of the United States) is absurd, because it completely undermines the intent of the clause.

Mario you described the intent of the clause the best when you said, “The Framers used the natural born citizen clause to assure that future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the Military would be born citizens of and in allegiance with only the United States from the moment of birth and throughout their lives. They concluded that such a person would be one to least have sympathies for some foreign power or influence which could result in conflict of interests which could harm the United States and its people.”. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/05/senator-cruz-senator-rubio-and-governor.html

Again it is appropriate to "state the obvious" - the best litmus test for any proposed theory or definition of NBC. Regardless of any other legal precedents, Aristotlean logic, etc. - this one trumps everything:

Did the Founding Fathers mean the NBC clause to be multi-culti inclusionary, or to add another layer of exclusion and protection?

@ Carlyle Part 1The leading Founding Fathers were mostly multi-lingual, many of which were well versed in the Greek and Latin Classics. They actually looked to the ancient Greeks and Romans on what worked and what did not work in what was previously conceived as Republics in political antiquity. Therefore, in order to know Founder’s Intent at the time the Constitution was ratified, it helps to understand what they could glean from and antiquity to their times as what defined a “Natural Born Citizen” in their eyes and understanding at the time, so we may proper interpret the meaning of the United States Constitution regarding this phrase in our own day with minimal controversy and have the Court concur with us, whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Herodotus, in his "Histories", uses autochthon in the sense of both original and ancient. Hence, one who is native and of long standing in the land...often in the sense of ages and many centuries before others came and attached themselves or pushed out those that preceded them. By using aboriginal rather than “natural born citizen” as the Founding Fathers would have interpreted autochthon, the English translation carries over an obfuscation in the original intent of the passage, and is lost on most readers from the early 20th century onward.

Herodotus, The Histories, 1.171.5A. D. Godley. Cambridge. Harvard University Press. 1920, translates as:“…the Carians themselves do not subscribe to it, but believe that they are aboriginal inhabitants of the mainland and always bore the name which they bear now.”

The relevant Greek text reads αὐτόχθονας for the English translation of aboriginal. Later in the same translation of Herodotus, The Histories, 4.197.2, the Greek text reads:αὐτόχθονα and αὐτόχθονες for the below translations as aboriginal

[2] I have this much further to say of this country: four nations and no more, as far as we know, inhabit it, two of which are aboriginal and two not; the Libyans in the north and the Ethiopians in the south of Libya are aboriginal; the Phoenicians and Greeks are later settlers.

Liddell, Henry George ; Robert Scott; A Greek-English Lexicon, (Revised by Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie) Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940...defines the ancient Greek word autochthon αὐτό-χθων as:"Sprung from the land itself" and as the adjective "indigenous, native".

When looking to Plato for advice, we see that he places the emphasis on a plural of fathers (2 forefather generations or more) that are required to be born in the land as well as the one born, or 3 generations born on the soil, to be called indigenous or "natural born" stock. It is a nuance most people miss in the first reading.

Plato, Menexenus 237b - 237c, states:[237b]: "… thereafter we shall exhibit the character of their exploits, how nobly and worthily they wrought them. Now as regards nobility of birth, their first claim thereto is this -- that the forefathers of these men were not of immigrant stock, nor were these their sons declared by their origin to be strangers in the land sprung from immigrants, but natives sprung from the soil living and dwelling in their own true fatherland; and nurtured also by no stepmother, like other folk, but by that mother-country [237c] wherein they dwelt, which bare them and reared them and now at their death receives them again to rest in their own abodes.

The SAME translation was consistently done in the following year with Demosthenes, when the equally credentialed team of C.A. Vince and J.H. Vince translated the Greek ofμόνοι γὰρ πάντων αὐτόχθονες ὑμεῖς ἐστε κἀκεῖνοιas:"for you and they are the only indigenous peoples in Greece—“

The passage comes from Demosthenes, On the False Embassy, 19.261; but it is in 19.260 that we learn that it is the "men of Athens" who are the only indigenous people...not in the specifically mentioned Land of Greece...but in the place or region in which they found themselves at. Hence, the translators infer Greece by the context of the speakers words of implication and apparent intent.

Perhaps it would have better been read to something after this effect:“…men of Athens…for alone sprung up from the land itself you are in the manner and place of this region [Greece].”(Demosthenes, English translation by C. A. Vince, M. A. and J. H. Vince, M.A. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1926).

4] The nobility of birth of these men has been acknowledged from time immemorial by all mankind. For it is possible for them and for each one of their remote ancestors man by man to trace back their being, not only to a physical father, but also to this land of theirs as a whole, a common possession, of which they are acknowledged to be the indigenous children.

For alone of all mankind they settled the very land from which they were born and handed it down to their descendants, so that justly one may assume that those who came as migrants into their cities and are denominated citizens of the same are comparable to adopted children; but these men are citizens of their native land by right of legitimate birth.

7] For the ancestors of this present generation, both their fathers and those who bore the names of these men in time past, by which they are recognized by those of our race, never at any time wronged any man, whether Greek or barbarian, but it was their pride, in addition to all their other good qualities, to be true gentlemen and supremely just, and in defending themselves they accomplished a long list of noble deeds.

Note the pattern: It is the father, the lineage through the father, and the name of the father that determines one's indigenous or "natural born identity", in conjunction to the land from which they and their father spring from. If the son is not born in the land of his father, he is a foreigner of the land of his foreign father, even when born in a foreign land.

Again, Plato seems to place an indigenous stock to that of great-grandchildren born in the land...so that if a third generation is born to the soil, only then can we apply the term native, indigenous, natural born, autochthon.

παλαίχθων palaichthon has also found use in ancient Greek to help us identify and define what a "natural born citizen" is, or at least was, in the mind and interpretations of the Greeks.

παλαίχθων palaichthon means to the effect of: "an ancient or long-standing inhabitant of a country or place", inferring that indigenous is multi or many generations in the nature of the word.

Hence, "natural born" in the sense of how it was understood are able to MULTI-GENERATIONALLY trace such a lineage in the soil through the father...something that is intended by the Founding Fathers for the Presidency of the United States, and something Barack Obama is incapable of doing.

Even the Minor Attic writer, Hyperides, offers a solution for when a society is multi-cultural:[7] To do so would, I think, be foolish. Granted, if one is praising men of a different stamp, such as have gathered from diverse places into the city which they inhabit, each contributing his lineage to the common stock, then one must trace their separate ancestry.

But from one who speaks of Athenians, born of their own country and sharing a lineage of unrivalled purity, a eulogy of the descent of each must surely be superfluous.

Natural Born Citizenship is the highest form of National Citizenship to a society, and it must extend to be even greater than that Citizenship created or inferred by the Founders but listed by the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" debate intent.

The Congressional Globe, 1st session, May 30, 1866 The debate on the first section of the 14th Amendment http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor38

Mr. Trumbull: The provision is, "that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." That means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof"... What do we mean by "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"? Not owing alliance to anybody else. That is what it means.

...It cannot be said of any...who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." ...It is only those persons who completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.

Well, I know one thing for sure! Anchor babies are not and cannot be NBC. That would be totally absurd and would render the phrase and it's meaning totally useless. Yet the prevailing wisdom - at least the OBOTs and their defenders - would define NBC so broadly so as to include anchor babies. Total insanity!

Anchor Babies a Progressive Movement Agenda item: The key to this issue, in my opinion, is in the first sentence of Amendment XIV: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; jurisdiction can only apply if one has legal standing to be in our nation. Illegal aliens have no standing and therefore not subject to US jurisdiction since they are here illegally. Therefore, any off springs born of them is also illegal when born here. This is for the same reason that foreign diplomat’s, who are posted here, children born who are here are not US citizens by birth since these diplomats are not subject to US jurisdiction. Senator Jason M Howard (1866) the author of the 14th Amendment explained this is his published writing and state:

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified July 9, 1868.Senator Jacob M Howard (MI) 1866 author of the 14th Amendment wrote:I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by the virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

One of the biggest frauds committed against the Constitution and the United States is that Justice Gray in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) did not interpret the Fourteenth Amendment and its "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause under what Senator Howard, the architect of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, said was the law to which he looked for its meaning, i.e., "natural law and national law," but rather under what was then, as a source for providing the rules of decision for defining U.S. national citizenship, the dead colonial English common law.

Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion in Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. _____ (2015) made this statement: “It [Congress] has determined that children born abroad to U. S. parents, subject to some exceptions, are natural-born citizens who do not need to go through the naturalization process. 8 U. S. C. §§ 1401(c), (d), (g).” Dr. Conspiracy seizes upon this statement as proof that a child born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents is a natural born citizen and therefore eligible to be elected President. Clearly, Justice Thomas did not mean what he said since there is no legal basis to his statement and he probably meant to just say that a person born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents is a citizen of the United States at birth, not that the person is a natural born citizen.

First, given the Court’s finding that the President has special constitutional powers over foreign policy, affairs, and diplomacy, to the exclusion of any power held by Congress, it does not make sense that Justice Thomas would find that a person born in a foreign country, a native-born citizen of that foreign nation, only a citizen of the United States through the grace of a naturalization Act of Congress, and therefore suffering from at least a dual citizenship and allegiance would in the eyes of the Framers be eligible to be President and to lead the armed forces in time of war with foreign nations which could include the very nation of that person’s birth.

Second, there is no textual support in any naturalization Act of Congress for Justice Thomas’ statement. Justice Thomas explained:

In order to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Congress must be able to identify the categories of persons who are eligible for naturalization, along with the rules for that process. Congress thus has always regulated the “acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents . . . in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 688 (1898) ; see also Miller v. Albright, 523 U. S. 420, 456 (1998) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (recognizing that “Congress has the power to set the requirements for acquisition of citizenship by persons not born within the territory of the United States”). It has determined that children born abroad to U. S. parents, subject to some exceptions, are natural-born citizens who do not need to go through the naturalization process. 8 U. S. C. §§ 1401(c), (d), (g).

~~~~~

But a plain and simple reading of 8 U. S. C. §§ 1401(c), (d), (g) clearly demonstrates that Congress called persons born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents “citizens of the United States” “at birth.” It did not call them “natural born citizens.”

Third, it makes little sense to say that Congress has determined that a natural born citizens do “not need to go through the naturalization process.” Well, of course, they do not or else they would not be called natural born citizens. And it surely does not take some law by Congress to tell us that.

Fourth, even if Justice Thomas did mean to call those foreign-born persons natural born citizens, his statement has no controlling legal effect or authority. The issue before the U.S. Supreme Court in Zivotofsky concerned the constitutional allocation of power over foreign affairs between Congress and the President. The specific question was whether a federal statute that directs the Secretary of State to record the birthplace of an American citizen born in Jerusalem as "Israel," if requested to do so, impermissibly infringes on the President's power to recognize foreign states. The Supreme Court held that it does. There was no issue before the Court as to whether a child born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents was an Article II natural born citizen. The statement: “It has determined that children born abroad to U. S. parents, subject to some exceptions, are natural-born citizens who do not need to go through the naturalization process. 8 U. S. C. §§ 1401(c), (d), (g),” simply has no need and therefore no place in the decision. Hence, Justice Thomas’ statement as to a child born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents being a natural born citizen was not fully analyzed and discussed, was not central to the Court's holding, and is therefore dicta. Since his statement is dicta, we surely cannot be sure what he meant or whether the statement is correct. But then I know that Dr. Conspiracy does not know the difference between dicta and the holding of the court.

(also known as: converse error, fallacy of the consequent, asserting the consequent, affirmation of the consequent)

New Terminology:

Consequent: the propositional component of a conditional proposition whose truth is conditional; or simply put, what comes after the “then” in an “if/then” statement.

Antecedent: the propositional component of a conditional proposition whose truth is the condition for the truth of the consequent; or simply put, what comes after the “if” in an “if/then” statement.

Description: An error in formal logic where if the consequent is said to be true, the antecedent is said to be true, as a result.

Logical Form:

If P then Q.

Q.

Therefore, P.

Example #1:

If taxes are lowered, I will have more money to spend.

I have more money to spend.

Therefore, taxes must have been lowered.

Explanation: I could have had more money to spend simply because I gave up crack-cocaine, prostitute solicitation, and baby-seal-clubbing expeditions.

Example #2:

If it’s brown, flush it down.

I flushed it down.

Therefore, it was brown.

Explanation: No! I did not have to follow the, “if it’s yellow, let it mellow” rule -- in fact if I did follow that rule I would probably still be single. The stated rule is simply, “if it’s brown” (the antecedent), then (implied), “flush it down” (the consequent). From this, we cannot imply that we can ONLY flush it down if it is brown. That is a mistake -- a logical fallacy.

Very good. I see that you get it. The entire Jack Maskell and Obot argument, that any born citizen is a natural born citizen violates the fallacy of affirming the consequent. They are not able to produce any historical or legal evidence for their definition and rather just say that it must mean any person who is a citizen from the moment of birth, no matter where born, no matter to whom born, and no matter what law or source so declares them citizens at birth. Well, of course all natural born citizens are born citizens. But that does not translate to all born citizens are natural born citizens.

To clarify MichaelN's "affirming the consequent" proposition for my "what does that mean" friends, here is another way of putting the "if/then" proposition and the conclusion of the 1787 framers and their affirmation of John Jay's original genesis original intent reason for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington.

If a child is born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents, then the child is a singular U.S. citizen and is constitutionally "... eligible to the Office of President."

Anything less than birth on U.S. soil, birth two U.S. citizen heterosexual married parents and ONLY birth with singular U.S. citizenship is bunkum, aka claptrap.

I have maintained that the definition of an Article II natural born citizen is constitutionally separate and distinct from the definition of a Fourteenth Amendment born citizen, with the former, as confirmed by Minor v. Happersett (1875), being a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens and the latter being a child born in the United States while subject to its jurisdiction. How do we know that Article II’s natural born citizen, as so defined by Minor, survived the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment? Minor made two very important comments that prove the point. First, it said that the Constitution, which then already included the Fourteenth Amendment, did not define a natural born citizen. U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898) said the same and also did not say that a Fourteenth Amendment born citizen was necessarily also an Article II natural born citizen. In fact, the text of the Amendment defines “citizens of the United States” and not “natural born citizens.” Nor is there any evidence from the Amendment’s debate history that it was intended to repeal the natural born citizen clause or to define a natural born citizen and differently from how it was defined under the common law.

Second, Minor made this statement:

The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

Minor, at 168. Here, Minor is referring to “all children” which it included in its definition of a natural born citizen and “all persons” which is the phrase found in the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause. Hence, Minor still gave controlling effect to “all children,” which was included in the common law definition of the natural born citizens even though the Fourteenth Amendment used “all persons” in its definition of the citizens of the United States. Minor did not say that “all children” was no longer to be used, as the phrase had been replaced with the Fourteenth Amendment’s “all persons.” Stated differently, Minor implicitly recognized through this statement that the definition of an Article II natural born citizen was separate and distinct from the definition of a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment and that it survived the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is a critical point of Minor to understand, because it shows that the Fourteenth Amendment did not repeal or amend Article II’s natural born citizen clause and that Minor was still committed to the common law meaning of “children,” who were defined as legitimate children, meaning they had to be born to a married father and mother, when defining a natural born citizen. Hence, when Minor said that “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also[]” and that “[t]hese were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners,” it meant children born in the country to two citizen parents who were married.

Given our changing times and the impact of the Fourteenth Amendment, we probably cannot insist that parents of a child who is to be recognized to be a natural born citizen must be married. But our modern times and the Fourteenth Amendment’s language change and equal protection blanket, have not altered the Framers’ original requirement that such a child be born in the United States to parents who were both citizens of the United States at the time of the child’s birth.

In the paragraph that starts with "Minor, at 168," I think the statement, "This is a critical point of Minor to understand, because...legitimate children, meaning they had to be born to a married father and mother...," preemptively overrides the implication of the opening words of the last paragraph, "Given our changing times...we probably cannot insist...parents...must be married."

If the Constitution is amended, yes, "...we probably cannot insist..." However, if the Constitution is not amended, si se puede--yes we can--insist that the original genesis original intent of the 1787 framers of the Constitution was intended to be perpetual; i.e., that the parents MUST be married to each other before the child is born.

In other words, it is the 2000s "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers who need to amend the constitution to override natural law and to include positive law language that gives eligibility to be president to the children of two unmarried, heterosexual "parents", OR two "married" or unmarried homosexual U.S. citizen parents, OR one single heterosexaul OR homosexual parent.

To quote Bob Dylan in a different context, there's a slow train coming, and you've gotta serve somebody.

I did not realize that a previous comment that I posted by L. Gambler contained two links. I only reviewed the first which was fine and not the second. A commenter to this blog brought to my attention the content of the second link. I reviewed it and agree with him. I have therefore reposted L. Gambler's comment, without the second link. His comment is below:

Obamafraud: How Obama Ripped Off the Entire Countryhttp://www.theblaze.com/contributions/obamafraud-how-obama-ripped-off-the-entire-country/

"After coming in the lower-middle of the last three debate polls, Cruz finally made it to the No. 2 spot this week. By sheer coincidence, it was the first debate where he fully adopted Trump's position on immigration.

"Too bad Cruz isn't a natural-born citizen."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

My point for posting Ann"s "nbC" addendum is this:

Since Ann has never, well, up to this point, never expounded on the eternal relevance of "natural born Citizen" in a political sense or a constitutional sense, I wonder if Ann's reference to "nbC" is a sisyphean comment of futility (rolling a huge stone to a hilltop in Hades only to have it roll back down) or a John Galt pyrrhic victory statement similar to John Galt's comment in Ann Rand's Atlas Shrugged?

"We, the men of the mind, are now on strike against you in the name of a single axiom, which is the root of our moral code, just as the root of yours is the wish to escape it: the axiom that existence exists." (Atlas Shrugged page 929, Signet 50th Anniversary Edition of Atlas Shrugged)

[...snip... p.979]

"The last of my words will be addressed to those heroes who might still be hidden in the world, those who are held prisoner, not by their evasions, but by their virtues and their desperate courage."

[...snip...]

"But to win it requires your total dedication and a total break with the world of your past, with the doctrine that man is a sacrificial animal who exists for the pleasure of others.

Fight for the value of your person. Fight for the virtue of your pride. Fight for the essence of that which is man: for his sovereign rational mind.

Fight with the radiant certainty and the absolute rectitude of knowing that your is the Morality of Life and that yours is the battle for any achievement, any value, any grandeur, any goodness, any joy that has ever existed on this earth.

"You will win when you are ready to pronounce the oath I have taken at the start of my battle--and for those who wish to know the day of my return, I shall now repeat it to the hearing of the world:

"I swear--by my life and my love of it--that I will never live for the sake of another man, for ask another man to live for mine."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario, what the references to the futility of Sisyphus and the pyrrhic victory of John Galt mean, in the context of John Jay's perpetual original genesis original intent for underlining the word "born in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington, a suggestion that was eventually included in Article II Section 1 clause 5, is that, either the struggle for constitutional clarity continues or it is time to declare that defeat is the prelude to renewal at a later time.

Yes, the struggle continues.

Not only must we struggle against the islamization of America, we must struggle against the shariaization, uh, I mean, the emasculation for political gain by good men such as Sen. Ted Cruz, of the U.S. Constitution.

On December 17, 2007 Becky Garrison published an interview titled, The Wittenburg Door Interview: N.T. “Tom” Wright. He taught New Testament studies for twenty years at Cambridge, McGill, and Oxford universities. He is now Research Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at St Mary’s College in the University of St Andrews in Scotland.

In the interview, Wright uses these examples to explain how Jesus and Paul relate to each other still today, 2000 years later:

Composer: writes the musicConductor: uses the original musicMusician: plays the original musicMusicians must be united and must know the implicit structure

Medical researcher: finds Doctor: applies to the patient what is found

Architect: designsBuilder: builds what has been designed

Hermeneutic used (to interpret, to explain, the theory and method of interpretation )

My point for quoting N.T. Wright and his original intent comments as related to Jesus, the Architect, and Paul, the Builder, is to apply the original intent of the 1787 architects of the U.S. Constitution to the 1787-2015 builders of the American union.

In the context of John Jay underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington, the "original genesis" meaning of a "natural born Citizen" was and still is ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents. ONLY singular U.S. citizenship was the "original intent" of John Jay, the founder "architect" of "born," so to speak, and of George Washington who passed the architectual suggestion to the framers, the original "architects" of the Constitution, and ultimately the ratifiers (including New York ratifier John Jay), the original "builders" of the "union" of America.

Here are the 7th, 8th and 9th questions and answers in which Wright articulates, in the context of Jesus and Paul, why origins and original intent are important for contemporary cultures.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Question 7DOOR:That means that there are the inherent dangers in viewing, say, the Letters of Paul through the lens of contemporary culture.

Answer 7WRIGHT:There are massive anachronisms when one makes assumptions about the things going on in this world that weren’t in his world. This requires that we read Paul faithfully and go between these two worlds. As I hinted earlier, the fifth act, in which the Church is called to live and work, is characterized by two things. First, it has firm and fixed foundations, including a definite closing scene which is already sketched in Romans 8, 1 Corinthians 15, Colossians 1 and Revelation 21 and 22.

Second, it has the command, under the spirit, to improvise through the unscripted period between the opening scenes and the closing one. No musician would ever suppose that improvising means playing out of tune or time. On the contrary, it means knowing extremely well whether one is in the implicit structure, and listening intently to the other players so that what we all do together, however, spontaneously, makes sense as a whole. That is the kind of hermeneutic I envisage as I read, and preach from, Paul’s letters today.

Question 8DOOR:Is that why you once described relationship between Jesus and Paul as that of composer and conductor, medical researcher and doctor, and architect and builder?

Answer 8WRIGHT:The composer writers the music. If the conductor decides to write some on his own account, that would be a way of saying he didn’t want to play that composer’s music, but some of his own instead. His job is to play the music the original composer has written. The doctor takes the results of the research and applies them to the patient. Her job is not to do more research on the topic, or, if she thinks it is, it isn’t because she’s is being loyal to the original researcher but because she is being disloyal. The builder takes the plans drawn up by the architect and builds to that design. It isn’t his task to draw a new building; or, if he does, it’s not because he is filled with the admiration for the original design but because he isn’t.

Question 9DOOR:Got it. On the other extreme, how can stuff like The Gospel of Judas and The Da Vinci Code inform the Christian faith?

Answer 9WRIGHT:What we can see in this current passion for Gnosticism is a hunger for spirituality and purpose. We have to ask why our culture is so hungry for different kinds of spirituality.

Also, the appeal of second century Gnosticism is that people in our culture are eager to find anything to rebuke or replace traditional Christianity. This myth—what I call “the new myth of Christian origins,” according to which Jesus was just an ordinary person who taught a new type of spirituality, that He didn’t die for our sins or rise again—is what’s lurking behind the Jesus Seminar. Many people in our culture don’t like traditional Christianity and are eager to find anything else at all to go with instead.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The gnostic “new myth of Christian origins” relates to the gnostic "new myth" of "natural born Citizen" as understood by "nbC" new meaning "gnostic" neobirthers.

Mario, similar to the way that Wright exposes the fallacy of the "builders" changing the original plans of the "architect," to cite only one of Wright's examples of original intent, it looks like the original intent of architect John Jay has been usurped by "natural born Citizen" new meaning gnostic neobirthers, aka the gnostic "myth builders" of 2000s America, who promote the incoherent theory that birth on either U.S. --OR-- foreign soil was Jay's 1787 "original genesis original intent" for underling the word "born", and that birth to either two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents was Jay's and Washington's and the framers' 1787 original intent prior to the absurdity of the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court "ctizen" by fiat holding, and, anyway, the ratifiers were the real architects of the "building" known as the United States of America, so that implies that future generations could also redefine "nbC" however they wanted.

>> "The builder takes the plans drawn up by the architect and builds to that design. >> "It isn’t his task to draw a new building; >> "or, if he does, >> "it’s not because he is filled with the admiration for the original design but because he isn’t."

It seems that the current "builders" of the "union" of America (Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian and Anarchist) have changed the "original genesis original intent" of the 1787 founders, framers and ratifiers, the original architects and builders of the "union" of America as President Abraham Lincoln articulated it in his 1861 first inaugural address. See Bartleby.com - paragraph #14 ( http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html )

Wright says in answer #9, "...the appeal of second century Gnosticism...people in our culture are eager to find anything to rebuke or replace traditional Christianity. This myth—what I call “the new myth of Christian origins,”...."

The "new myth of Christian origins" that ignores tradition and the "new myth" of "natural born Citizen" that ignores commonsense original intent are gnostic myths pushed by those who "know" what the framers did not know. The new myth of the "nbC" gnostic neobirthers is inspired by the desire to replace John Jay's traditional 1787 "original genesis original intent" of singular U.S. citizenship with dual U.S./foreign citizenship. This is a 2000s myth that appeals to 21st century "gnostics" who "know" what John Jay, George Washington and the framers and ratifiers did NOT know, dual U.S./foreign citizenship with, for example, ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, was John Jay's "traditional" meaning.

If the "nbC" new meaning "gnostic" neobirthers say that they do NOT "know" that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents was Jay's "traditional" meaning that was inspired by Emer de Vattel in Vattel's Law of Nations and was applied by the 1875 Minor v. Happersett Court, well, how do they "know" that dual U.S./foreign citizenship by birth to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, married OR not, was Jay's "traditional" meaning that the 1875 Minor v. Happersett Court was defending? They don't "know" and they don't care.

That applies to my Texas Federal senator Ted Cruz who, as a constitutional scholar (and, as a young man, memorized the entire U.S. Constitution), does "know" the original intent of "natural born Citizen." That is why he parses his words by saying that he has never breathed a breath when he was not a U.S. citizen. Sen. Cruz does "know" that the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act, a statute passed by Congress, the positive law that he was born under, does NOT grant because it can NOT "grant" "natural born Citizen" status to a "citizen" born on foreign soil to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent.

Sen. Cruz knows that a "citizen" can NOT be declared to be a "natural born Citizen" by an Act of Congress, and he knows that Article II Section 1 clause 5 identifies a "natural born Citizen" as "...eligible to the Office of President" ONLY by birth as a result of an act of congress by two U.S. citizen married parents.

The Obots push the notion that someone who is naturalized by a naturalization Act of Congress to be a "citizen of the United States" at birth, such as Ted Cruz, is not a naturalized citizen of the United States. They then say that not being a naturalized citizen of the United States, there is nothing else that he can be but a natural born citizen.

The Obots have to either admit or deny that there is such a thing as a naturalized born citizen of the United States. If they deny it, they cannot defend their position, for anyone would readily admit that if a naturalization Act of Congress makes one a citizen of the United States at birth, then that person has to be a naturalized born citizen. If they admit that there is such a thing as a naturalized born citizen, they also add that such a citizen is a natural born citizen of the United States, because he or she became a citizen of the United States at birth under a naturalization Act of Congress without having to go through any naturalization process after birth. But if as the Obots maintain someone who is naturalized by a naturalization Act of Congress to be a citizen of the United States at birth is not a naturalized citizen of the United States, then who is a naturalized born citizen of the United States? Is it a child born in the United States to one or two alien parents, who the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), declares to be a citizen of the United States from the moment of birth? But no, for the Obots also say that no one who is made a citizen of the United States at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment is a naturalized citizen of the United States. So then, not existing in the first example under a naturalization Act of Congress, or in the second under the Fourteenth Amendment, where may we find this naturalized born citizen?

The easiest way to tell that one is either wrong or lying is that there is no consistency in what one is saying. Need I say more?

The Rules

THE RULES:

This blog does not advocate resort to any violence in order to bring about political change. Rather, what we advocate is resort to zealous use of one's First Amendment right to "freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please keep in mind this is a moderated blog. This is akin to a court setting and is not a wide open say anything you want, anytime you want, free speech zone like a soap box in a public square. If you want that type of forum you will have to go elsewhere. Keep your comments and questions in this blog's threads serious and focused on the subject and merits of this post. Unsubstantiated statements which are determined to be false and misleading, or even potentially misleading to others (the jury of public opinion reading this blog) as to the true facts, repetitive, argumentative, personal ad hominem attacks, defamatory statements, criticism or lobbying efforts for other attorneys and/or their cases, blog scrolling, advertising links, inappropriate links, disinformation campaigns, and/or off topic comments will likely not be posted. I also will not discuss in public specifics as to my planned tactics or strategies. I am the Judge in this blog and will rule on the merits, materiality, worthiness, etc., of all comments. My rulings on the acceptance or rejection of a comment are final. Please note that your comments will not appear immediately as I have to review them first. As I am busy working on various cases with my law practice, it may be several hours to 24 hours some days before your comment is reviewed and accepted and/or answered. Please try to stay on topic. The main focus of this blog -- the Obama Article II natural born Citizen eligibility issue and the historic Kerchner vs. Obama & Congress lawsuit. Thank you.